MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh. [Archive] - Page 2

SethB

10-31-2010, 01:14 AM

Imbel FALs sell for about 900 bucks today. TRW's $90 would be about 900 today and the M4s are running about 2K. So I doubt the cost comment is very accurate.

You can't extrapolate costs from 50 years ago. All of those rifles took a lot more hand fitting than newer designs do. For instance, the FAL requires that the headspace be set, then the barrel removed and the extractor groove cut in, and the barrel reinstalled. I'm not sure where in the process it is chromed, but that would add another step. Those IMBEL rifles are actually kits, which means that someone took the hit already. They don't reflect the real cost. A DSA FAL costs thousands.

Someone at DoD apparently asked for prices on a new M14. Apparently they would cost somewhere in the $3,000 range.

In comparison, the M16 series has gotten cheaper to make over the years because machining has gotten a lot cheaper with the proliferation of advanced machine tools.

They are reliable today but all the arguments praising the M16 still overlook the real problem -- the cartridge and it's effective range.Define significant -- and do the accessories count? :DEither the Stoner 63 or the AR-18 say Gene stoner doesn't agree with you...

The Stoner 63 was never fully finished. Stoner worked on it for most of the rest of his life. The AR 18 was developed to make a more cost effective rifle; the major downside is that he couldn't use the direct impingement system that he'd already sold to Colt, and the receiver requires welding which adds a step. Neither would support the proliferation of tubes that are so common on modern American rifles.

As for the weight, an M16 is 2.5 pounds lighter than an M14. Once you add an ACOG and a rail for a light and an IR laser you are into the four pound range. The FAL will be slightly heavier.

It's adequate, there are better rifles out there but they are not mo' better to the point that the cost of change is justified. Changing the cartridge is far easier and there's no excuse for not having done that.

Agreed. I've told you before that I think we ought to move from 5.56 and 7.62 to 6x35 and 7x46. Of course, you have more experience in that area than I ever will, and my opinion is worth what you paid! But that would mean that we can make something smaller and lighter for leadership and support types and still get the range that Infantry can use.

Disabling the full auto capability would help save money and provide an incentive to shoot better.... ;)

I agree. As well as simplifying the trigger group. The current burst trigger is horrendous.

As for shooting better, that is a huge issue all on its own...

Rifleman

10-31-2010, 01:44 AM

It's adequate, there are better rifles out there but they are not mo' better to the point that the cost of change is justified.

I like the idea of the HK416 because it's essentially an M16 with a gas piston and operating rod. It has the advantage of having much in common with the rifle troops have already been trained on but should be even more reliable. But you're probably right that the improvement isn't worth the cost.

Changing the cartridge is far easier and there's no excuse for not having done that.

6.5, 6.8 or something else?

Ken White

10-31-2010, 03:13 AM

6.5, 6.8 or something else?But the same crowd (or, actually, mentality...) that orchestrated the M14 and messed up the AR-15 and its cartridge and ran the recent test debacle (LINK) (http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ExtremeDustTestBriefv35.ppt)was responsible for killing that cartridge. It had a lot of potential but the initial trial versions developed at Frankford Arsenal did great, 1,000m tracer burn, penetration almost equal to the 7.62x51, only slightly heavier than the 5.56, solid 5-600m effective range from short barrels and up to 1,000m in longer (as in SAW) barrels. It wasn't perfect but it was good, better than the 5.56 in all iterations to date.

Both some of the 6.5 / 6.8 mods are okay as well -- even the 5.56 could be tweaked a bit as the Mk 262 shows -- the basic 5.56 prob however is pill size, it's just a hair to small in all dimensions for effective use against humans in all conditions with marginally trained troops. It's a good cheap peacetime cartridge and adequate for most, not all, combat in the hands of well trained, capable users. It is simply a poor combat cartridge for every Joe and Jane, the most common users.

Ken White

10-31-2010, 04:40 AM

for over 50 years... :wry:
You can't extrapolate costs from 50 years ago.Of course you can if you do it fairly and as objectively as possible. -- which you inadvetently aren't doing. Can't compare small scale civilian sales and large military contract costs. :wry:
All of those rifles took a lot more hand fitting than newer designs do.Not so much newer designs, the FAL, M14 and M16 series are all the same age. The lack of hand fitting now is due to manufacturing improvements, specifically computerized machining. Apply those techniques to the other designs and you'd get cost reductions.
For instance, the FAL requires that the headspace be set, then the barrel removed and the extractor groove cut in, and the barrel reinstalled.And that's just one of its problems -- however, that one could be eliminated with CNC manufacturing.
Those IMBEL rifles are actually kits, which means that someone took the hit already. They don't reflect the real cost. A DSA FAL costs thousands.In reverse order, DSA is using Austrian tooling from the Stg58 and adds a lot of new techniques and makes a few weapons in exotic mods to be sold to civilian buyers who can afford to indulge themselves with classy toys. If they were to get a military contract, the volume would bring cost reductions. The Imbel rifles of which I spoke were not the kits imported by some here in the States and of which I'm aware but the complete weapon made by Imbel in Brazil for the Brazilian Armed forces (Their 5.56 variant is a good design with a bad cartridge...;) ). You cannot equate civilian arms with military contract arms -- two different markets, two different levels of quality (usually), two different prices.
Someone at DoD apparently asked for prices on a new M14. Apparently they would cost somewhere in the $3,000 range.You got a source for that? I'm dubious. Not on the cost, everything DoD buys is vastly overpriced initially because some Congroid is pushing it and trying to take care of his constituent. Once the initial buy is made, the haggling begins and the acquisition guys get prices down to sensible levels. The M14 is a good example, Springfield Armory (the original) built 'em for an undisclosed cost but the first commercial contract, to Winchester ran about 200 bucks a rifle thanks to the Connecticut Congroids. Harrington and Richardson got the second contract at about $120 a rifle and TRW got the final contract at an average $90 a weapon. Don't know what the current M4A1 cost is but IIRC, when FN got the contract away from Colt briefly back in 1988, it was $420 a copy -- allowing for inflation, that'd be about 8-900 today.

I simply do not know why anyone in recent years would suggest buying M-14s; there are better 7.62mm weapons out there and the Mk 11 and M110 would seem to make buying the M14 a really dumb idea. Hmm. That may mean you're apparent story is correct...:D
In comparison, the M16 series has gotten cheaper to make over the years because machining has gotten a lot cheaper with the proliferation of advanced machine tools.Uh-huh -- and the same thing would apply to the other rifles were they still in production.
The Stoner 63 was never fully finished. Stoner worked on it for most of the rest of his life. The AR 18 was developed to make a more cost effective rifle; the major downside is that he couldn't use the direct impingement system that he'd already sold to Colt, and the receiver requires welding which adds a step. Neither would support the proliferation of tubes that are so common on modern American rifles.We can disagree. The Stoner system was indeed a work in progress and it too would have benefitted from 40 years of manufacturing porgress. It also used a piston, perhaps because of Colt, perhaps because Stoner realized that every infantryman is not really a Rifleman (capital 'R'). IMO, use of a piston is not a downside, it is an upside. It provides a positive mechanical reliability improvement and eases maintenance. Most piston weapons can be fired dry because the piston (long stroke, short stroke is little better than impingement) provide far more energy than does a direct gas spurt. That's an advantage in the Arctic, really cold weather (as in northern Europe or Korea, in the Afghan mountains in winter), extremely dusty areas (ala both current theaters) or in tropical rain forests (ala earlier theaters or the Philippines) where water gets into everything...

Either way, both were improvements in most respects, not least reliability, over over the M16 in my opinion and I've shot all three.
Agreed. I've told you before that I think we ought to move from 5.56 and 7.62 to 6x35 and 7x46. Of course, you have more experience in that area than I ever will, and my opinion is worth what you paid! But that would mean that we can make something smaller and lighter for leadership and support types and still get the range that Infantry can use.I'd go for a single caliber, PDWs are not really viable in intense long term combat. Like the Mk 46 and Mk 48 MGs, they may be okay for the SOF types who get extra training and do not do sustained combat but they aren't durable enough for sustained, day in - day out combat use by Joe and Jane. Plus you increase the log burden for no good reason for a marginal stopping power weapon with limited uses.
As for shooting better, that is a huge issue all on its own...True -- and it's unlikely to improve much -- and that is the problem with weapons selection. A combat weapon should be selected based on worst case scenarios and use by marginally trained or even poorly trained troops. Reliability in really poor conditions is the most important factor with stopping power a close second. Go for a higher plateau (or a lighter one, as happened with the M16) and you'll have trouble. There should also be planned, phased upgrading and replacement instead of waiting for problems to occur.

I realize you're an M16 fan. Good for you, nothing wrong with that and in fact there's a lot to be said for it. However, the rifle -- M16, M4 or any other -- is a tool, that's all that it is. I spent a lot of years salivating over all kinds of exotic weapons and wanted all the toys I could afford. Then I realized they're simply tools, no less and no more. I can admire many of them but selecting the right tool for the planned job is important and admiration isn't an issue.

SethB

10-31-2010, 05:22 AM

for over 50 years... Of course you can if you do it fairly and as objectively as possible. -- which you inadvetently aren't doing.

Inadvertent is correct. It's hard to get reliable numbers sometimes, and contract price can very. The current M4s are coming equipped with M68s and RAS, or so I hear, which means that you can't really compare them.

Can't compare small scale civilian sales and large military contract costs.

Agreed, although often I can get something for less as a civilian because I am not getting the package.

Not so much newer designs, the FAL, M14 and M16 series are all the same age.

The M14 is largely (but not entirely) derivative of a design that dated back to the '20s. The FAL was of course much newer. The M16 came about a few years after the FAL in the form of the AR10. The actual AR15 was at least a decade behind the FAL, although the original FAL was much, much different than the production version.

I'd like to have one of the original FALs but I am looking for a transferable BAR at the moment.

The lack of hand fitting now is due to manufacturing improvements, specifically computerized machining. Apply those techniques to the other designs and you'd get cost reductions.And that's just one of its problems -- however, that one could be eliminated with CNC manufacturing.

Some things can't really be made better with CNC tooling. Colt 1911s still require handfitting that an M&P doesn't. And it will always be like that. It's a design feature from a time when skilled labor was cheaper than machines.

My AI AW can take any barrel ever made for that rifle because it was held to a tolerance. A Remington does not have the same advantage, although both were made using computerized tooling.

In reverse order, DSA is using Austrian tooling from the Stg58 and adds a lot of new techniques and makes a few weapons in exotic mods to be sold to civilian buyers who can afford to indulge themselves with classy toys. If they were to get a military contract, the volume would bring cost reductions. The Imbel rifles of which I spoke were not the kits imported by some here in the States and of which I'm aware but the complete weapon made by Imbel in Brazil for the Brazilian Armed forces (Their 5.56 variant is a good design with a bad cartridge...;) ). You cannot equate civilian arms with military contract arms -- two different markets, two different levels of quality (usually), two different prices.

You are correct and I shouldn't have been so cavalier with those numbers. As for the FAL in 5.56, the tilting bolt design should work better with the thin rim but I can't say that with experience.

You got a source for that? I'm dubious. Not on the cost, everything DoD buys is vastly overpriced initially because some Congroid is pushing it and trying to take care of his constituent. Once the initial buy is made, the haggling begins and the acquisition guys get prices down to sensible levels. The M14 is a good example, Springfield Armory (the original) built 'em for an undisclosed cost but the first commercial contract, to Winchester ran about 200 bucks a rifle thanks to the Connecticut Congroids. Harrington and Richardson got the second contract at about $120 a rifle and TRW got the final contract at an average $90 a weapon. Don't know what the current M4A1 cost is but IIRC, when FN got the contract away from Colt briefly back in 1988, it was $420 a copy -- allowing for inflation, that'd be about 8-900 today.

I don't have a source. I know that they are buying spare parts for the M14 that cost almost as much as a new M4...

As for the M4 price, I think you are about $100 low but again it is hard to compare across the board.

I simply do not know why anyone in recent years would suggest buying M-14s; there are better 7.62mm weapons out there and the Mk 11 and M110 would seem to make buying the M14 a really dumb idea. Hmm. That may mean you're apparent story is correct...

Those rifles have had all manner of problems over the years. That and they are extremely expensive. The new EMC is supposed to solve a lot of the issues, and the PMAG 20LR reduces magazine prices and weight.

Uh-huh -- and the same thing would apply to the other rifles were they still in production.We can disagree. The Stoner system was indeed a work in progress and it too would have benefitted from 40 years of manufacturing porgress.

Interestingly enough, the Navy has a ton of Stoner LMGs sitting at NSWC Crane. In the box...

It also used a piston, perhaps because of Colt, perhaps because Stoner realized that every infantryman is not really a Rifleman (capital 'R'). IMO, use of a piston is not a downside, it is an upside. It provides a positive mechanical reliability improvement and eases maintenance. Most piston weapons can be fired dry because the piston (long stroke, short stroke is little better than impingement) provide far more energy than does a direct gas spurt. That's an advantage in the Arctic, really cold weather (as in northern Europe or Korea, in the Afghan mountains in winter), extremely dusty areas (ala both current theaters) or in tropical rain forests (ala earlier theaters or the Philippines) where water gets into everything...

While I don't think that the current gas system is necessarily a problem, the long stroke system has advantages. The short stroke AR systems are a joke and add problems. Most of the benefits and costs of the AR have to do with the unique rotating bolt. Having only 22.5º to turn, the receiver is shorter, but that short stroke means that the turn is accomplished much more quickly than in a Kalashnikov, where the 90º turn slows extraction. That is accomplished at the cost of receiver length. Trade offs. Pretty sure we've all heard about that one.

Either way, both were improvements in most respects, not least reliability, over over the M16 in my opinion and I've shot all three.

The Bushmaster ACR is an attempt to package the AR18 into something that has modern ergonomics and accessory mounting capability. Time will tell if it will work... But I don't see a high degree of success so far.

I'd go for a single caliber, PDWs are not really viable in intense long term combat. Like the Mk 46 and Mk 48 MGs, they may be okay for the SOF types who get extra training and do not do sustained combat but they aren't durable enough for sustained, day in - day out combat use by Joe and Jane. Plus you increase the log burden for no good reason for a marginal stopping power weapon with limited uses.True -- and it's unlikely to improve much -- and that is the problem with weapons selection. A combat weapon should be selected based on worst case scenarios and use by marginally trained or even poorly trained troops. Reliability in really poor conditions is the most important factor with stopping power a close second. Go for a higher plateau (or a lighter one, as happened with the M16) and you'll have trouble. There should also be planned, phased upgrading and replacement instead of waiting for problems to occur.

Agree with all of those things save one, with my usual caveats about my experience. I don't think the caliber issue is that great an issue. After you issued all of your soft skills, artillerists, weapons crews, support personnel and leadership with a small, light weapon you'd actually have about five times as many guys using the smaller weapon. This was shown to be true already in the Second World War when production of the M1 Carbine was greater than that of the M1 Rifle, not counting the numbers of SMGs that were produced as well. Your ammunition consumption rates would be higher for the larger caliber, I suspect, especially if your belt feds were chambered for it.

Maintenance of weapons is a joke. It doesn't happen. A round counter would be helpful, but there are always people who would use it too literally... But we do a bad job of diagnosing basic problems. Most Soldiers don't know, for instance, that their springs have a service life...

I realize you're an M16 fan. Good for you, nothing wrong with that and in fact there's a lot to be said for it. However, the rifle -- M16, M4 or any other -- is a tool, that's all that it is. I spent a lot of years salivating over all kinds of exotic weapons and wanted all the toys I could afford. Then I realized they're simply tools, no less and no more. I can admire many of them but selecting the right tool for the planned job is important and admiration isn't an issue.

I agree with you entirely. I just find that the AR15/M16 has worked for those jobs that I've so far encountered.

Ken White

10-31-2010, 03:43 PM

The M14 is largely (but not entirely) derivative of a design that dated back to the '20s. The FAL was of course much newer.In part. It owes a lot to the 1918-ish BAR...

Still, the production versions all appeared about the same time. I was not in the unit in the 101st that ran the Troop Test on the M14, but was in a neighboring unit and IIRC, they had a number of problems with the FAL that were later traced to a flawed metric / inch conversion. They also had a couple of AR-10s, didn't get to shoot one there but did in the Dominican Republic when we captured a couple of ex-Batista NWM made AR-10s in 1965. It had a bad gas in the face problem...
Those rifles have had all manner of problems over the years. That and they are extremely expensive. The new EMC is supposed to solve a lot of the issues, and the PMAG 20LR reduces magazine prices and weight.Of course they've had problems, they're new and with no major, existential war on, there's no pressure to get it fixed quickly. They suffer from low procurement quantities which drives up the price. I'll also point out that they stem from the same flawed (IMO) AR-10 / M16 design...;)
Interestingly enough, the Navy has a ton of Stoner LMGs sitting at NSWC Crane. In the box...Yep, availability doesn't solve the cartridge / rifling problem... :(
... Having only 22.5º to turn, the receiver is shorter, but that short stroke means that the turn is accomplished much more quickly than in a Kalashnikov, where the 90º turn slows extraction. That is accomplished at the cost of receiver length. Trade offs. Pretty sure we've all heard about that one.Lack of slow initial extraction has always been a killer for firearms, it is perhaps the greatest flaw in the Stoner design -- though there are others. Trade offs are always necessary, there is and will be no perfect weapon. The issue to me is who decides what trade offs will be made -- and too often, the decision maker is someone with an excess of rank and a distinct lack of practical real world user experience. Those kinds of folks opt for the jazzy instead of practicality.

That's how we got the M16. Interestingly, TRW the last M14 contractor came up with perhaps the best combat rifle to date but did it at a bad time and in the wrong (5.56) caliber. (LINK) (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as78-e.htm). It wasn't perfect but had development potential -- we rarely get the best product right out of the design hall. It could've been easily modified to fire single shots (though the cyclic rate was low enough to allow that with trigger manipulation) and fire from a closed bolt. Note they had to hang a useless bayonet on the weapon to satisfy the Primal Ooze in the Ordnance Corpse. :rolleyes:
The Bushmaster ACR is an attempt to package the AR18 into something that has modern ergonomics and accessory mounting capability. Time will tell if it will work... But I don't see a high degree of success so far.It does have potential and we will see, though I'm inclined to believe the Robinson XCR probably has more potential. As an aside, for extended combat, the accessorizing trend -- as a substitutet for better training in too many cases -- just might be getting out of hand. :eek:
Agree with all of those things save one, with my usual caveats about my experience. I don't think the caliber issue is that great an issue. After you issued all of your soft skills, artillerists, weapons crews, support personnel and leadership with a small, light weapon you'd actually have about five times as many guys using the smaller weapon. This was shown to be true already in the Second World War when production of the M1 Carbine was greater than that of the M1 Rifle, not counting the numbers of SMGs that were produced as well. Your ammunition consumption rates would be higher for the larger caliber, I suspect, especially if your belt feds were chambered for it.Remind me again why the M1 and follow on Carbines are not still issued...

The fact that there are more of the types you mention than there are infantrymen is the reason there were more carbines produced. I'm not sure the fact that there are more people who want a light, handy weapon to avoid the weight and hassle of a full scale piece is adequate justification for issuing a marginally performing firearm to people who just might have to shoot back. Those people, I'll point out, are the ones most likely to need a tech solution (i.e. adequate power) to sub for skill.
Maintenance of weapons is a joke. It doesn't happen.That's because the Army does not train it. We teach it but we don't train it. The Marines used to train it, don't know if they still do. Training means embedding the skill so it's automatic, not showing someone how and telling them they need to do it. That's easily changed -- but it does require NCOs and Officers in training units to do a little more work.
A round counter would be helpful, but there are always people who would use it too literally...It also adds a bit of complexity, something that should always be avoided. Simple is lifesaving.
But we do a bad job of diagnosing basic problems. Most Soldiers don't know, for instance, that their springs have a service life...Interesting -- and a training flaw induced by that atrocious Task, Condition Standard show and tell stupidity. Back in the dark ages when I was a Joe, most in Infantry units knew that. Then again, they also knew to count their shots so they didn't get caught having to change mags at a bad time and offload mags and all springs routinely when they could...

Progress is not necessarily our most important product.

Fuchs

10-31-2010, 06:21 PM

It also adds a bit of complexity, something that should always be avoided. Simple is lifesaving.

The international consensus seems to be that a translucent back side of the magazine is a good compromise.

SethB

10-31-2010, 06:55 PM

It had a bad gas in the face problem...

Easy fix. The Mk 12 has a Gas Buster charging handle.

Lack of slow initial extraction has always been a killer for firearms, it is perhaps the greatest flaw in the Stoner design -- though there are others.

Agreed.

That's how we got the M16. Interestingly, TRW the last M14 contractor came up with perhaps the best combat rifle to date but did it at a bad time and in the wrong (5.56) caliber. (LINK) (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as78-e.htm). It wasn't perfect but had development potential -- we rarely get the best product right out of the design hall. It could've been easily modified to fire single shots (though the cyclic rate was low enough to allow that with trigger manipulation) and fire from a closed bolt.

Interesting. Never seen that one before.

I'm inclined to believe the Robinson XCR probably has more potential.

The XCR is a good concept poorly executed...

As an aside, for extended combat, the accessorizing trend -- as a substitutet for better training in too many cases -- just might be getting out of hand.

I can't answer that. But I can see the utility to improvements in sights, which is primarily what is added.

Remind me again why the M1 and follow on Carbines are not still issued...

I would assume that a large part of that is because we have lighter, smaller weapons with three times the range close at hand already. But I'd like to hear what your experience was.

The fact that there are more of the types you mention than there are infantrymen is the reason there were more carbines produced. I'm not sure the fact that there are more people who want a light, handy weapon to avoid the weight and hassle of a full scale piece is adequate justification for issuing a marginally performing firearm to people who just might have to shoot back. Those people, I'll point out, are the ones most likely to need a tech solution (i.e. adequate power) to sub for skill.

Speaking from my perspective, we have a lot of crew served weapons on our MTOE, including Mk-19s, M240s, M249s and M2s. If we get down to IWs we will be at spitting distance.

That's because the Army does not train it. We teach it but we don't train it. The Marines used to train it, don't know if they still do. Training means embedding the skill so it's automatic, not showing someone how and telling them they need to do it. That's easily changed -- but it does require NCOs and Officers in training units to do a little more work.It also adds a bit of complexity, something that should always be avoided. Simple is lifesaving.Interesting -- and a training flaw induced by that atrocious Task, Condition Standard show and tell stupidity. Back in the dark ages when I was a Joe, most in Infantry units knew that. Then again, they also knew to count their shots so they didn't get caught having to change mags at a bad time and offload mags and all springs routinely when they could...

Progress is not necessarily our most important product.

Ideally Soldiers would be able to replace basic parts themselves, but at this point even the armorers can't do that...

SethB

10-31-2010, 06:56 PM

The international consensus seems to be that a translucent back side of the magazine is a good compromise.

Clear polymers are weaker than colored ones. Black is the strongest. I'll take my magazines in FDE, thank you, and in fact I have. I have eight of them sitting behind me at the dinner table.

When I refer to round counters I am talking about accelerometers for determining service intervals, not for the purpose of maintaining a loaded weapon.

Ken White

10-31-2010, 07:59 PM

When I refer to round counters I am talking about accelerometers for determining service intervals, not for the purpose of maintaining a loaded weapon.However I was talking about the round count that really mattered, not one that would add totally unnecessary complexity to a weapon that in combat will not last long enough for the round counter to have served any useful purpose. Metallurgical and mechanical science are adequate to design and manufacture parts designed to provide x rounds of service life but that doesn't mean one has to use that for a criteria. :rolleyes:

In fact, I'd argue against such a criteria because it will simply encourage the bean counters to become round counters and retain weapons in the inventory past their sell-by date...

Aside from the problem of personnel turnover and its impact on who has what weapon and what a particular weapon might see in the way of use, most combat weapons will be physically harmed by all sorts of accidents and combat action to the point they require rebuild or disposal long before any total rounds fired count will serve a purpose. Many would not believe how blood and tissue can foul a weapon -- or what dropping to the prone can do to plastic furniture. Or opening ration or Ammo cases can do to excessively light barrels with unnecessary cuts, channels and chamfers. Forgetting weapon limitations and trying a butt stroke instead of a muzzle strike can ruin your day. Firing the weapon with thick mud or snow in the barrel can provide interesting effects as does a week in the Monsoon...

Grenade or shell fragments embedded can provide a little artistry, though... :wry:

Service intervals should be simply 'clean it if it's dirty, replace parts that break, buy a new one every two years of combat and / or ten years of peace (pro rated) and do not waste time, effort and money trying to do more -- or less.'

Armies in peacetime revere complexity because it makes them look all knowing, 'professional' and technologically current. In wartime, KISS rules. There's a reason for that and I, for one, do not see that changing much in your lifetime. ;)

Pete

10-31-2010, 09:28 PM

It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip. It goes without saying that a reverse-engineered product with design modifications would introduce new bugs that would have to be ironed out.

In reference to bayonet lugs, I believe it was the Infantry School and not Ordnance who insisted on that. The Type 3 barrel band for the M1 Carbine with the bayonet lug wasn't produced untl 1945. I have an original Inland carbine from December 1943 that has the Inland "I" on all of its parts. It's in factory-new condition. The main problem with collector-grade guns is that you don't want to shoot them -- I'll don't want to break my carbine's extractor firing crappy Wolf ammo.

Rifleman

10-31-2010, 10:05 PM

It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip.

I think the 6.8 is about .277. It would have been interesting in 1946 but why do you want it in a Garand with a box magazine today?

I can see wanting the caliber but I'd rather have it in an M16-type rifle with a gas piston and operating rod. In other words, the HK416.

Pete

10-31-2010, 10:21 PM

Just curious -- it wouldn't be for military use.

SethB

10-31-2010, 10:29 PM

I think the 6.8 is about .277. It would have been interesting in 1946 but why do you want it in a Garand with a box magazine today?

I can see wanting the caliber but I'd rather have it in an M16-type rifle with a gas piston and operating rod. In other words, the HK416.

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

A better solution is to move the gas port farther away from the chamber.

Ken White

11-01-2010, 03:26 AM

..In reference to bayonet lugs, I believe it was the Infantry School and not Ordnance who insisted on that...TIS has a bayonet on their patch. :rolleyes:

If Bunker Four had their way, we'd still wear tricorns and use these (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_1795_Musket). :wry:
It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip. It goes without saying that a reverse-engineered product with design modifications would introduce new bugs that would have to be ironed out.Talk to Beretta, bet they have a bunch of these they'd like to move (LINK) (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as54-e.htm). Bugs already worked out, rebarrel and a new bolt and you're good to go.

Though that .276 is OBE due to metallurgical, chemical and manufacturing improvements.

Pete

11-01-2010, 09:49 PM

Many would not believe ... what dropping to the prone can do to plastic furniture.
Army manuals from before World War II were explicit about the need to slide the right hand from the small of the stock to the butt of the stock when assuming the prone position. The manuals included step-by-step sketches or photos showing how to do it, and that was in the days of walnut stocks.

Fuchs

11-01-2010, 10:15 PM

There are thousands of "plastics", and the new stuff isn't the same as 1970's stuff.

It's therefore quite pointless to talk about "plastic" as if it was a single kind of material. It's even less descriptive than "steel".

SethB

11-01-2010, 10:56 PM

The the Marine Corps Marksmanship team and Lt. Col. Lutz designed the M16A2 they switched plastics to something that was about 1,000% stronger, making stock strength a non issue.

The M4 sometimes breaks during IMT, but that is the aluminum receiver extension or the receiver itself that usually fails.

Ken White

11-02-2010, 12:01 AM

Army manuals from before World War II were explicit about the need to slide the right hand from the small of the stock to the butt of the stock when assuming the prone position. The manuals included step-by-step sketches or photos showing how to do it, and that was in the days of walnut stocks.However and as is often true, what the manual shows and what Joe does are often quite different. As I said above, we don't train well -- we teach a lot but we don't train. We don't because it's tedious to do it to build the necessary muscle memory and most trainers are too lazy to spend the time and effort required.

Incidentally, that technique is one reason the M1 stock is much thicker at the small than was the 03 or even the 03A1. It worked with the M14, did not work with the M16 and couldn't work with the adjustable stocks.

The Micarta stock on a BAR would take it though it got chewed up on gravel in the process. It flat did not work with the M1A1 Carbine... :D

120mm

11-03-2010, 03:37 PM

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

A better solution is to move the gas port farther away from the chamber.

Ding, ding, ding.

But unfortunately, this doesn't pee away several million dollars and keep the development wonks employed.

While I'm on, here is some cool video of the M4A1 shoot to destruction test:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/12/world/asia/1247466496261/m-4a1-firing-test.html

It's interesting to note that once the melted gas tube was replaced, the M4 functioned just fine with good accuracy. The gas tube fails at 911 rounds, btw.

And here's an oldie but a goodie when the old farts start waxing about what an awesome, infallible and perfect gun the M1 and M14 were.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884292-2,00.html

When first introduced, the Garand was commonly known as "That Mickey Mouse Piece of Sh*t". But later, a General Officer who really never used one declared it to be the "Greatest battle implement ever devised."

Here is a bit about M4 reliability for a guy who shoots, and trains shooters for a living:

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

And of course, there is the story of "Dirty 14" the M4 carbine that has currently gone 39,000 rounds and counting without cleaning by Pat Rogers of EAG.

One other problem with comparing the M4 system to other historic small arms, is that never before have soldiers and police forces built up such insane round counts in training. Because of this, we know more now about what makes guns go (or not go) than ever before. Plus, training is different now than it was then. No-one took an M14 to a 360 degree firing range and shot 2000 rounds in two days, combined with rough handling.

Gun failures in the past, when they happened, mostly occured in combat situations where a detailed study of why and how was not really practical. The KD range just didn't expose a gun's weaknesses.

BTW, there are a bunch of M14s in theater. Most of which are lying broken in an arms room, gathering dust. Partially, it's because of lack of parts, but also because they are relatively fragile and unreliable.

Ken White

11-03-2010, 07:11 PM

...
One other problem with comparing the M4 system to other historic small arms, is that never before have soldiers and police forces built up such insane round counts in training. Because of this, we know more now about what makes guns go (or not go) than ever before. Plus, training is different now than it was then. No-one took an M14 to a 360 degree firing range and shot 2000 rounds in two days, combined with rough handling.this (from your TIME link) sort of disputes that last item:

""
• One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On overall efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage. (emphasis added /kw) ""

Admittedly, there's a difference between tests and heavy firing in training by some organizations. Problem is Joe rarely gets to fire as much as those organizations do.
Partially, it's because of lack of parts, but also because they are relatively fragile and unreliable.Or it could be due to a lack of parts and being unreliable because very few if any there today know how to check, gauge and fix minor ills... :D

Not that I'm denying the fragility part, neither the M14 or the M16 / M4 get any applause in that area.

Last time my son was there, he carried one similar to that shown below which he used 'til he left (that Texas Guardsman in the pic is not him...). No problems. He's doing different stuff this time so he has an M4 as he did on the first tour. He's comfortable with either. Whatever works...

As for the M4, no question it's very reliable in well trained hands. So was the M14. However, in the hands of Joe, both were and are merely adequately reliable, a somewhat lower plateau. Again, whatever works...

Rifleman

11-04-2010, 12:51 AM

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

How so? I'm not saying it isn't true but it's contrary to what I've read elsewhere about rifles like the HK416 and AR18. What am I not understanding?

SethB

11-04-2010, 01:06 AM

Pistons aren't a miracle cure. They are not at all great when added to rifles that weren't designed to support them.

In an M4, the gas expanding in the aptly titled expansion chamber pushes the bolt forward, reducing strain on the lugs. Also, the carrier moves straight to the rear. In a piston system, the rear of the carrier needs a system to keep the rear of the carrier from tilting down. So a piston actually causes premature wear on an AR pattern rifle.

Further, the HK416 runs very high carrier speeds. That is part of where it gets its reliability from. If we wanted to do that with an M4 we could run 1100 RPM from PMAGs without much issue, except the weapon would wear out faster. Running that on GI mags won't work out quite as well.

For what it is worth, Larry Vickers (the US face of the HK416 when it was developed) doesn't think that the system is necessary with barrels over 10.5 inches.

Meanwhile KAC and VLTOR have developed new buffer and gas system designs that slow cycling while adding mass to the carrier. You can now get a collapsible stock and buffer combination that reduces cyclic rate by 100 RPMs while increasing reliability. It uses weight to slow unlocking, increase forward momentum on the return stroke and prevent bolt bounce. It uses an A2 spring which increases smoothness.

There are lots of ways to go about making a more reliable rifle. A piston is the last one that ought to be tried.

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/Vltor%20AEBK-A5B%20EMOD-A5%20Black-2.jpg

Using a gas port located further from the barrel reduces cyclic rate, port pressure, unlocking speed, eases extraction, makes feeding easier and reduces gas port erosion.

Second picture removed because it was gigantic.

120mm

11-04-2010, 04:17 AM

this (from your TIME link) sort of disputes that last item:

""
• One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On overall efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage. (emphasis added /kw) ""

Admittedly, there's a difference between tests and heavy firing in training by some organizations. Problem is Joe rarely gets to fire as much as those organizations do.Or it could be due to a lack of parts and being unreliable because very few if any there today know how to check, gauge and fix minor ills... :D

Not that I'm denying the fragility part, neither the M14 or the M16 / M4 get any applause in that area.

I am merely asserting that the M16/M4 is far superior to the so-called "fragility" ascribed to it by mythology, and the M1/M14 are far less than the lightning bolts of Zeus mythology attributes to them.

Last time my son was there, he carried one similar to that shown below which he used 'til he left (that Texas Guardsman in the pic is not him...). No problems. He's doing different stuff this time so he has an M4 as he did on the first tour. He's comfortable with either. Whatever works...

As for the M4, no question it's very reliable in well trained hands. So was the M14. However, in the hands of Joe, both were and are merely adequately reliable, a somewhat lower plateau. Again, whatever works...

I would suggest that the state of the art in small arms is pretty much dominated by the M4. And that any "improvements" on the system are at best incremental at great cost, or are a trade off, again at great cost in capability or specialization.

While there are a lot of so-called "improvements" on paper, none to date really pan out, and the latest bunch (SCAR, ACR, XCR) offer identical performance for added complexity, size and weight. None of which are worth the pain, imo.

Ken White

11-04-2010, 05:05 AM

I am merely asserting that the M16/M4 is far superior to the so-called "fragility" ascribed to it by mythology, and the M1/M14 are far less than the lightning bolts of Zeus mythology attributes to them.I agreed with that when you said it earlier. I said then re: the M14: ""... It was not a great weapon on several counts but I do not nor do I know of anyone who awards it 'a halo of perfection.' It was a tool, it was adequate, no more. The FAL would have been a better choice -- though it also had some problems...""
I would suggest that the state of the art in small arms is pretty much dominated by the M4. And that any "improvements" on the system are at best incremental at great cost, or are a trade off, again at great cost in capability or specialization.

While there are a lot of so-called "improvements" on paper, none to date really pan out, and the latest bunch (SCAR, ACR, XCR) offer identical performance for added complexity, size and weight. None of which are worth the pain, imo.Seth B also said pretty much the same thing about the M4:

""I'd say that you'd have a hell of a time finding a better rifle COTS, and if you further developed it (as the DoD has refused to do for many years) you can improve on what already exists.""

I agreed, saying ""It's adequate, there are better rifles out there but they are not mo' better to the point that the cost of change is justified...Changing the cartridge is far easier and there's no excuse for not having done that...Disabling the full auto capability would help save money and provide an incentive to shoot better...""

Seth B:

In response to my earlier question: ""Remind me again why the M1 and follow on Carbines are not still issued..."" You repied:
I would assume that a large part of that is because we have lighter, smaller weapons with three times the range close at hand already. But I'd like to hear what your experience was.Not at all. The M1 Carbine was a major issue item, an early PDW if you will, in the Army and Marines during and after WW II. Until Korea. What had been discovered in Europe in WW II but conveniently forgotten to save money, postwar, was that the round had inadequate stopping power. It had great difficulty penetrating heavy winter clothing -- wouldn't, in fact. That was rediscovered in Korea and lack of censorship there, as opposed to the coverup in WW II, allowed reporters there to get the word back to CONUS causing Congress to go into an apoplectic state. The Carbines were quickly retired in both services and replaced with M1s. The M1 Carbine thus disappeared from the active component scene in 1951-52, long before any lighter smaller weapons with three times the range were even on the drawing board much less at hand. The weapon was okay, not great, okay (the short stroke piston flaw...) -- but the cartridge was not an adequate man stopper.

The hot little round for a light PDW concept is okay for highly trained specialists who need light and handy. It does not work well for masses of Joes with marginal training.

The best weapon is a prisoner to its ammo. If the ammo sucks, the weapon will also. That is a significant cause of the checkered reputation of the M4. Conversely, the more assured stopping power -- not great, just far better than the 5.56 -- of the 7.62x51 gives the M14 "a halo" -- according to 120mm -- that we all agree isn't deserved.

120mm

11-04-2010, 03:44 PM

The best weapon is a prisoner to its ammo. If the ammo sucks, the weapon will also. That is a significant cause of the checkered reputation of the M4. Conversely, the more assured stopping power -- not great, just far better than the 5.56 -- of the 7.62x51 gives the M14 "a halo" -- according to 120mm -- that we all agree isn't deserved.

The world would be a much better place if the phrase "stopping power" were banned forthwith. Stopping power doesn't come close to being an accurate depiction of what projectile weapons do to human beings in reality.

7.62 is not that much better than 5.56. Esp. when you look at the M80 ball in comparison with the newer, heavier versions of 5.56. It's not a fair comparison, because if you modernized 7.62 to the extent 5.56 has been developed, it'd be better, also.

The problem with 5.56 lethality is also a product of some suspect anecdotal evidence. "But Sarge, he soaked up 17 solid hits and kept running as fast as Jesse Owens" most likely was "Sarge, I suck at shooting, so I missed him 17 times."

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place. Personally, I like the shooting characteristics of 5.56, and feels it does an adequate job of killing bad guys.

Also, a point I made earlier, the M4 fits in very nicely with the current system of fighting.

Rifleman

11-04-2010, 05:38 PM

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place.

More GPMGs at platoon level? I don't see how they could be pushed down lower than that, since we have two LMGs per squad now.

Ken White

11-04-2010, 07:09 PM

The world would be a much better place if the phrase "stopping power" were banned forthwith. Stopping power doesn't come close to being an accurate depiction of what projectile weapons do to human beings in reality.It's meant to portray the effect on the guy who's trying to stop you. The technical and physiological aspects drill down to insignificance next to that.
7.62 is not that much better than 5.56...it'd be better, also.If you meant that the physical tissue movement effect on the body of 5.56 and that of 7.62 were little different, that would be correct. If you meant the stopping power of a pill of 55-70 gr with a nominal energy of about 1,300 ft lbs is the take down equivalent of a 150 to 174 gr bullet with a nominal energy of about twice that, then nope.
The problem with 5.56 lethality is also a product of some suspect anecdotal evidence..."Sarge, I suck at shooting, so I missed him 17 times."Of course it is. He sucked at shooting because no one trained him to not suck at shooting. Thus I note that your suggestion:
I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place. Personally, I like the shooting characteristics of 5.56, and feels it does an adequate job of killing bad guys.suggests substituting technology and quantity over improving quality. So we can disagree on that. Not least because GPMGs spew out a lot of rounds that hit nothing and stop no one and the logistical burden already makes current usage techniques questionable. I'd go the other way, consolidate all of 'em at Co level in an MG Platoon --as the Marines and many other Armies do. There are a lot myths about what goes on in combat, no question. All wars differ. Sometimes Artillery is the best killer around, sometimes not. Sometimes MGs are in charge, sometimes not.

The issue of individual infantry weapons has little to do with who or what is in charge or more devastating, it is simply what weapon gives the Infantryman the best chance of surviving and doing his job -- that simply because when all else fails, the Arty runs out of ammo, shifts priority of fires or engages in 3,200 mil deflection errors; when the GPMG fails to feed due to debris in the belt or there are no more belts, he's still out there and he needs an ultra reliable weapon that will take a lot of abuse and that will stop bad guys.
Also, a point I made earlier, the M4 fits in very nicely with the current system of fighting.I could comment on that but I won't. I know I'm a dinosaur ;) -- I just hope you younger ladies and gentlemen versed in the current system of fighting don't have to fight any other Dinosaurs without a significant degree of prep time. That, BTW, is no snark but true concern and a sincere and honest wish for the future.

Fuchs

11-04-2010, 07:38 PM

Ken, energy as measure for bullet effectiveness against a human being is quite thoroughly debunked. It should simply not be moved in such discussions.

If any energy measure, we would have to look only at the energy transferred into the body anyway, for both cartridges do usually penetrate fully and thus retain much of their kinetic energy. Even that would be not even close to good, for the deformation of the bullet (damage done to the bullet, not to the body) is substantial, too.

Uboat509

11-04-2010, 08:34 PM

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

A better solution is to move the gas port farther away from the chamber.

I have talked to a number of people who have carried the 416 and they have all, without exception, raved about it. I have yet to hear anyone say anything negative about the 416 who has carried it in combat.

The problem with 5.56 lethality is also a product of some suspect anecdotal evidence. "But Sarge, he soaked up 17 solid hits and kept running as fast as Jesse Owens" most likely was "Sarge, I suck at shooting, so I missed him 17 times."

That is not necessarily true. I have talked to quite a few guys in my community who most definitely do not suck at shooting and the consensus has always been that 5.56 green absolutely does suck at bringing targets down quickly as compared to 7.62. 5.56 LR does much better but when I left Big Army all we ever got was green tip. Perhaps that has changed since I left but I suspect that it has not.

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place. Personally, I like the shooting characteristics of 5.56, and feels it does an adequate job of killing bad guys.

I am with Ken on this. Substituting quantity of fire for accurate fire is a bad idea. You are trying to sew up the wound without treating the underlying infection. In any case adding more GPMGs to the platoon means more guys that I can't bring into clear rooms in a building or clear a trench plus it adds more weight as we have to carry that much more ammo to feed these guns. In particular I don't like the idea of more M240s which have a much higher than needed cyclic rate of fire and so chew up the ammo that much faster.

Pete

11-04-2010, 08:43 PM

The M1 Carbine became a victim of its own popularity when it started being used as a main battle rifle instead of as an auxiliary weapon. In 1942 when it was introduced it quickly became the most popular small arm U.S. Army Ordnance had ever fielded because it was light, handy, and had a 15-round magazine capacity. Even though it was not a main battle rifle it started being used that way, and that's when its limitations in range and stopping power became apparent. In Pork Chop Hill by SLA Marshall most of the G.I.s are said to have been carrying M2 Carbines for conducting and repelling short-range trench raids.

One of the unsung successes of the carbine was its evolutionary development. The World War II model lacked the automatic capability, 30-round magazine, windage-adjustable rear sight, and bayonet lug. The rotary safety wasn't preplanned -- it corrected the human factors problem inherent in the push-button safety thay was easily confused with the magazine release. Evolutionary development with preplanned improvements always beats 20-year development programs.

With all that being said, the carbine would have been a better weapon had it been chambered for a more robust cartridge, had a barrel about two inches longer, and been about a pound heavier.

Fuchs

11-04-2010, 09:33 PM

Using a spitzer bullet shape might have earned it a place as the first assault rifle. The handgun bullet shape was part of the problem.

Pete

11-04-2010, 09:42 PM

In 1945 in Germany while the war was still going on Dad had a middle-aged civilian man approach him while he was on guard duty becase the guy wanted to get a better look at his carbine. He probablly meant no harm but Dad pointed his carbine at him to make him back off.

Ken White

11-04-2010, 10:00 PM

Ken, energy as measure for bullet effectiveness against a human being is quite thoroughly debunked. It should simply not be moved in such discussions.That's not true, what has been proven is that any study of incapacitation by small arms fire is extremely difficult and that energy is not the only or even on occasion the most or a more important factor.

Pure energy is only one measure and your energy transferred is another, those are only two variables. The issue is compounded by many other factors including range, bullet weight, speed, shape, construction and dozens of other things including bullet yaw, upset and expansion -- even the weather. All those physical events are further compounded by the virtually infinite variables of target body position, health, entry point, internal bullet travel route, specific organs or bone impacted (or not), hydrostatic shock, nerve damage, location and duration of temporary cavitation and size and location of any permanent cavity and much more...

One cannot derive many valid 'rules' in view of so many indeterminate variables. Nor can one discount many of those factors.

That acknowledged, greater energy and weight will, all things considered, have a greater AVERAGE impact effect than less of both. Having had a close look at a number of wounded and dead who were hit or killed by small arms fire and / or shell or grenade fragments, I have no doubt that bigger is badder. I can assure you that the Cal .30 US (.30-06) is a more effective military cartridge at all ranges and particularly over 600m than the 7.62x51 which in turn is an improvement upon the 5.56 at any range but particularly over 300m or so... :D

Yes, that's anecdotal. My dismissal of any 'evidence' involving gelatin is not anecdotal but it is also not scientific; it merely posits that gelatin does not have bone, muscle or will -- and that last is also a factor in bullet effect... :wry:

Fuchs

11-04-2010, 10:43 PM

A look at energy in the context of effectiveness is only useful if more is better. That's not the case because light fast bullets are usually less effective than heavy slow bullets of significantly lower kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is therefore useless and debunked as a measure of effectiveness in this context.

To use kinetic energy in this context entails a very high risk of misleading others and yourself.

Kinetic energy itself is a by-product of a bullet with a mass moving at a velocity, comparable in its lack of utility to impulse (another product of a simple formula with mass and velocity) or the sonic boom of the bullet. It's a by-product that does not deserve a mention in a discussion about bullet effectiveness against bodies.

Ken White

11-05-2010, 01:37 AM

...That's not the case because light fast bullets are usually less effective than heavy slow bullets of significantly lower kinetic energy...Kinetic energy is therefore useless and debunked as a measure of effectiveness in this context...To use kinetic energy in this context entails a very high risk of misleading others and yourself.I do not totally agree with the last two sentences. Kinetic energy is not debunked, it simply must be used with an understanding of the other factors.

As for misleading, I think no more so than a valid scientific though perhaps overly technical approach. The problem is that physics and ballistics do not account for the vagaries of combat and the human body. I've seen too many people who should by any measure have died that did not, too many that had no reason to die that did so. Plus much between those poles. Science is great, people will generally not behave as does gelatin. :wry:
...It's a by-product that does not deserve a mention in a discussion about bullet effectiveness against bodies.So we can disagree on that... ;)

Bob's World

11-05-2010, 11:08 AM

Kiwigrunt

11-05-2010, 11:43 AM

So my test is this: which round do I least want to be shot with personally. pick that one.

I would not want to be shot with this (http://www.vincelewis.net/2bore.html), but I don't think I'd want to carry or fire it. :p:eek: Not particularly fast but imagine a cast-iron frying-pan coming at you at 1500 fps.:)

SethB

11-05-2010, 12:55 PM

I don't know about any of this, but if someone was definitely going to shoot me, but I got to pick which weapon they used, I'm picking the smallest projectile at the slowest velocity. No science, just seems logical.

Therefore, if I wanted a weapon to do harm to others I would want the largest, highest velocity round that was practical (size, weight, etc).

So my test is this: which round do I least want to be shot with personally. pick that one.

There are more variables than diameter, weight and velocity.

If you want to do some reading on modern test protocol, Dr. Gary K. Roberts has picked up where Fackler left off, although many will disagree with him on a fundamental level.

With all due respect to Ken and his depth of experience, I've known other men with similar experiences who have told me opposite stories. Using anecdotal evidence is therefore troublesome.

Speaking strictly on terminal effect, I've known police officers who were in 50+ OIS' during their careers and they tended to use the AR15 and M1 Carbine. Unlike Soldiers at war, each man they shot was autopsied, rounds were counted, hits were counted and the picture is much more clear.

A friend of a friend used an HK53 with 55 grain bullets all over Africa for many years.

A friend of mine is an 18E who has used the Mk 12 (5.56) to 900M with effect. The bullet often impacts at barely supersonic speeds.

Neither had any complaints...

The key, then would seem to be training. Something which is more easily accomplished with a smaller, lighter cartridge.

Bob's World

11-05-2010, 12:59 PM

I would not want to be shot with this (http://www.vincelewis.net/2bore.html), but I don't think I'd want to carry or fire it. :p:eek: Not particularly fast but imagine a cast-iron frying-pan coming at you at 1500 fps.:)

But would definitely get ones attention. I suspect the right answer looks a bit more like an AK-47 for most soldiers, with something like an M-110 for 1-2 guys and a couple of LMGs per squad. PKMs and Dragonovs work though. Not sure how well our love of high-tech firearms plays out if we get into a situation again where guys are on the line, or behind the lines, for weeks on end.

Ken White

11-05-2010, 04:39 PM

Speaking strictly on terminal effect, I've known police officers who were in 50+ OIS' during their careers and they tended to use the AR15 and M1 Carbine. Unlike Soldiers at war, each man they shot was autopsied, rounds were counted, hits were counted and the picture is much more clear.HK416 and an M14 who now has an M4A1 in darkest Bafloofistan, I've got two others who are Cops today. One each in large east and west coast cities. Regardless of the definition of involvement, 50 plus OIS is an impressive -- and unusual -- number. I mention all that to point out a fact:

Great care should be taken in attempting to extrapolate LE firearms usage and experience to armed force combat. Two very different sets of circumstances.

Aside from the fact that most LE agencies are politically constrained with respect to calibers and effects for obvious collateral damage reasons, the training of LE Officers and Soldiers MUST be quite different. Mostly because LE folks are rarely confronted with what might be called extensive target arrays. Secondarily because they are required to do minimal damage. An occasional fire fight with one to even a dozen druggies is one thing; a sustained 50 or more person attack on your position or by your unit is a very different thing, add to that that the goal is to do the maximum possible amount of damage to the other guys and you get a quite different training focus -- or should.

Day in and day out combat is quite different than an occasional and actually rather rare LE oriented gunfight. Valid lessons can be drawn from both fields but they do not mix well...
The key, then would seem to be training. Something which is more easily accomplished with a smaller, lighter cartridge.Valid point. Those LE folks generally get far more firearms training and practice. That's partly because they face more stringent requirements than do most Soldiers or Marines (the military DA specialists are a whole different regimen) and their training orients toward the specifics of the environment. The armed combat environment is vastly different and the end goal should be total combat effectiveness.

Training toward that end is multi faceted and quite diverse, firearms training is a small and not often practiced subset for most. Thus ease of training should be less an issue than the quality of initial training in order to thoroughly implant in muscle memory the requisite skills. Concomitantly, selecting a weapon system for ease of training, while somewhat important, pales into a minor concern when contrasted to the need for combat effectiveness.

Weapon system inadequacy in law enforcement can have adverse consequences and can possibly cause harm to several persons per event. Weapon inadequacy is sustained armed combat can affect hundreds of people per event -- and potentially many more in multiple events over several days. Fortunately, we have not had to cope with sustained and intense combat for almost 40 years. Hopefully, we will not have to for at least that many more years. I wouldn't bet the farm on it...

Pete

11-05-2010, 08:09 PM

I have a reprint of small arms test reports from before the Civil War that were written and conducted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department. Many of them mention how many oak or pine boards of a certain thickness that the projectiles would penetrate. Wooden boards are not the same as human tissue but they do provide a basis for comparing different weapons and loads. By the way, I believe the terms "ball" and "round" go back to when small arms projectiles really were spherical.

Fuchs

11-05-2010, 09:58 PM

Pete

11-06-2010, 04:34 AM

Fuchs

11-06-2010, 10:50 AM

The chronographs used by U.S. Army Ordnance for small arms testing in the middle of the 19th century had rapidly swinging pendulums like on old clocks. When the projectile hit the flat surface attached to the pendulum the device would indicate the number of swings the pendulum had made. Thus velocity could be determined. I don't know how they measured muzzle velocity but they may have had a way.

That was a tool for testing the potency of different kinds of blackpowders.
It was not for velocity tests.

Four tools were in widespread use during the 19th century for measuring blackpowder quality:

* ballistisches Pendel (ballistic pendulum)
* Wagnerische Hebelpulverprobe (Wagner's lever powder test device) from Austria
* Rodman apparatus (U.S., 1860)
* Noble's crusher gauge (after Rodman)

The old test mortar fell out of use during the 19th.

SethB

11-06-2010, 02:28 PM

I don't know how they measured muzzle velocity but they may have had a way.

Most muzzle velocities are measure a few feet in front of the muzzle anyway.

I'd like to see if a doppler chronograph could be made small enough to fit on a rifle.

jps2

11-08-2010, 08:51 PM

Most muzzle velocities are measure a few feet in front of the muzzle anyway.

I'd like to see if a doppler chronograph could be made small enough to fit on a rifle.
Velocity can be determined by capturing time beween frames (infrared detection)

See http://www.oehler-research.com/model35.html

A good and consistent initial velocity is required to compute ballistic drop vs distance.

Pete

11-12-2010, 06:58 PM

Some can shoot, some cannot, and some never improve.
In 1944 there was a guy in my Dad's basic training unit at Camp Roberts, California who couldn't qualify with his carbine because he was terrified by it. He was given remedial training with a coach and he qualified Expert.

Rifleman

11-12-2010, 08:16 PM

There are real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to "skills". Some can shoot, some cannot, and some never improve. Plus almost all training is a function of quantity and quality and both of those cost money, so are the first things to get cut.

...here are some interesting links:

http://www.blogtopsites.com/outpost/4d84bd4957aba00b0db41827ba80c9c9

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm

At least I thought they were interesting. :)

Ken White

11-12-2010, 09:59 PM

the situation is unlikely to change much. It is changing slightly due to Outcome Based Training being introduced to the Army as a result of AWGs efforts but it's unlikely to improve significantly due to time and cost factors -- and lack of necessity (benefit, yes; necessity, no. Sad but true...).

The introduction of Designated Marksmen and relearning the value of Snipers have been two of the benefits of these wars. The interesting thing will be to see how long both last after we draw back from the ME and South Asia...

The Congress is willing to fund improved competence in war time. In peace time, it gets reluctant to fund that -- in part due to fear of training people to do things that most civilians would rather not give thought to. Like efficient killing...:rolleyes:

Pete

11-12-2010, 10:37 PM

When budgets and personnel accessions get tight planners at DA DCSOPS probably also have a role in killing off special-purpose programs that siphon off funds and personnel, seeing them as being nice to have but not absolutely essential. For decades Special Forces had to fight against that mindset.

Firn

11-13-2010, 10:44 AM

In 1944 there was a guy in my Dad's basic training unit at Camp Roberts, California who couldn't qualify with his carbine because he was terrified by it. He was given remedial training with a coach and he qualified Expert.

Having tutored recently quite a few people for our hunting exam, the greatest aids to decent shooting in training were:

a) proper technique&training
b) low recoil (caliber, soft pad, weapon weight, shape of the stock, proper gunfit)
c) low blast (thick ear protection, barrel lenght, caliber)
d) good trigger

Stress and adrenalin do mitigate b) and c), but make it hard to do a) well. Some people tolerate blast and recoil much better then others, just as some have a lot more talent for shooting. Note that this exam is take by old ladies as well as by young men. Generally the level of shooting experience is rather low to nonexistent.

Interestingly in Sweden almost every hunter uses now a sound suppressor, as I have seen recently during a hunting trip. It helps with b) and c) a lot.

Fuchs

11-13-2010, 01:11 PM

One of the reasons why few bothered to develop rifles in the 16th to 18th century was most likely the adverse effects of blackpowder guns on the shooter. At that time (flintstone and similar principles), a small blackpowder explosion (with much white smoke) moved upwards in front of your nose when you shot and the bullet left the barrel with noticeable delay!

Even people with a rifled barrel and with sights had huge difficulties to aim steadily under such conditions. In fact, that was likely the main reason why rifles didn't have their breakthrough until the percussion cap was used.

I personally don't understand how anything short of a .50BMG could impress the shooter much with recoil or noise unless it's a badly designed weapon (way too short barrel, for example). I was very disappointed when I shot 7.62NATO (G3) for the very first time.

Stupendous Man

11-13-2010, 02:34 PM

One of the reasons why few bothered to develop rifles in the 16th to 18th century was most likely the adverse effects of blackpowder guns on the shooter. At that time (flintstone and similar principles), a small blackpowder explosion (with much white smoke) moved upwards in front of your nose when you shot and the bullet left the barrel with noticeable delay!

[...]
The last part is a bit of a myth. With a properly constructed flintlock, there is no humanly discernible time between the pulling of the trigger and the breaking of the shot. And with a bit of training, the explosion is not much an issue either. In fact, consistent hits at human-sized targets out to 200 meters were not too difficult to archieve with ie. a Jägerbüchse or a Kentucky rifle, whereas engaging an individual target beyond maybe 50-60 meters was a waste of ammunition with a contemporary musket.
Ultimately, economical factors as well as training considerations likely played a far more prominent role in retarding the general adaptation of rifles than anything else from early modern times through the Napoleonic period.
Cheers.

Pete

11-13-2010, 07:56 PM

One of the reasons why few bothered to develop rifles in the 16th to 18th century was most likely the adverse effects of blackpowder guns on the shooter.
The King's Royal Rifle Corps was formed from remnants of the Royal Americans, a unit that fought in the French and Indian War and was partly armed with Pennsylvania rifles made by German immigrants there. The Royal Americans were commanded by Colonel Henri Bouquet, a German-speaking Swiss who may have gotten the idea from jaeger units in Germany. There is some debate about whether the Royal Americans wore Rifle Green or if that color was introduced later. KRRC was later amalgamated with Rifle Brigade to form the Royal Greenjackets (Wilf's regiment), which was recently amalgamated with a light infantry regiment to form the Rifles.

Pete

11-13-2010, 08:31 PM

One of the reasons why few bothered to develop rifles in the 16th to 18th century was most likely the adverse effects of blackpowder guns on the shooter.
The main reason 18th-century officers didn't want to arm with rifles was they were slow to load and had a low rate of fire. Their bullet-to-bore fit was tight and bullets were often wrapped in leather patches when they were rammed. However, the fire rifles produced was aimed. The 19th-century Minie ball with the cupped expanding bottom and bullets like it solved that problem.

Stupendous Man

11-13-2010, 10:39 PM

The King's Royal Rifle Corps was formed from remnants of the Royal Americans, a unit that fought in the French and Indian War and was partly armed with Pennsylvania rifles made by German immigrants there. The Royal Americans were commanded by Colonel Henri Bouquet, a German-speaking Swiss who may have gotten the idea from jaeger units in Germany. There is some debate about whether the Royal Americans wore Rifle Green or if that color was introduced later. KRRC was later amalgamated with Rifle Brigade to form the Royal Greenjackets (Wilf's regiment), which was recently amalgamated with a light infantry regiment to form the Rifles.
Just as a bit of trivia, the first all-rifle armed unit I am aware of was the Hesse-Kassel Jägercorps; they are first archivally mentioned in 1630 but are probably older.

The main reason 18th-century officers didn't want to arm with rifles was they were slow to load and had a low rate of fire. Their bullet-to-bore fit was tight and bullets were often wrapped in leather patches when they were rammed.
To raise their rate of fire in emergencies, riflemen in the Germanies carried subcaliber balls in paper cartridges very much like their comrades in the line infantry. I suspect the same was done in the Americas ?
Cheers

Pete

11-13-2010, 10:48 PM

Ich war stationert in Giessen fur drei Jahren in '78-'81. Ein gross-g-g Mutter war von Wetzlar (1830) und mein Vater war da mit U.S. Army in 1945.

Stupendous Man

11-13-2010, 11:04 PM

Giessen...ohjemine.
Probably the ugliest city in Germany, after the RAF was done with it.
But with such a history you can at least lay a claim to honorary Hessiandom, and that is, as everybody knows, the jackpot in the lottery of life.:D

Pete

11-14-2010, 06:38 PM

I had half expected that one of our British friends would cry bloody murder when I suggested that the rifle regiments in the British Army may have been founded in emulation of a German precedent. The British imperialists must have all died and gone to heaven, from where they now look down in amazement when they see us stumbling around in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan.

raymondh3201

11-14-2010, 07:52 PM

There are real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to "skills". Some can shoot, some cannot, and some never improve. Plus almost all training is a function of quantity and quality and both of those cost money, so are the first things to get cut.

Cost of training, yes, but "real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to skills" is rubbish. Can we say that of the Marines who were engaging the Germans in WW 1 at 800 yds with open sights? Yes, different wars and different times. But marksmanship has to be taught as does fire discipline and this takes time and money-that I believe and that .

But to say you cannot train a human is simply not true. Culture makes a difference but this can be overcome. Yes there are those who are more suited to warfare but anyone can be trained. Training is the core issue whether you use a musket or a M107. Weapon Fundamentals are the same for whatever war you fight until the plasma rifle comes in and I think this is what the Army is waiting for. However until that day comes proper marksmanship with a good rifle can save the day. The tactics are what will have to change to deal with the threat.

I agree that the killers on the battlefield are the crew served weapons but a rifleman at the right place and time can alter the battle and he needs a good rifle to do it. There will be times when you will not have priority on supporting arms. Then all you may have is what is organic to your unit. The M16 series has and will be with us for awhile and the 5.56 can and has been improved upon. Is it optional? No. But it is what we are stuck with. I believe as other studies have suggested that the optimal round is in the 6 to 7 mm range. However I doubt the rifleman will see it until an advance in body armor forces the change.

You can say what you will about cost, but with time anyone can be trained. The Will just has to be there to do it.

William F. Owen

11-15-2010, 06:11 AM

Cost of training, yes, but "real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to skills" is rubbish. Can we say that of the Marines who were engaging the Germans in WW 1 at 800 yds with open sights? Yes, different wars and different times. But marksmanship has to be taught as does fire discipline and this takes time and money-that I believe and that .

Sorry, it's not rubbish. For example, why can only some men be military helicopter pilots? Why can only some men be EOD Operators?

Yes training costs money. There is a very finite budget as to how much you can fund individual marksmanship training, and IMO most of the money is wasted aiming for a standard to reaps almost nothing in the context of how it is taught. Most marksmanship training is mostly about process, and feeding the "skills monkey."

Marines in WW1 were most likely volley firing. Volley fire (Section Fire) does create casualties. A British Platoon of 1914 could deliver about 600 rounds per minute into beaten zone at about 800 yards. The grouping requirement in 1921 was 4 inches at 100 yards, so individual fire against standing targets was 300 yards - and is today!

There is a vast difference between what you can do on the range and what counts in combat. Extensive testing by the UK and Canada has shown that they do not read across. Under even very small amounts of stress, marksmanship drops off dramatically. We could make far better use of time and funds by rationalising marksmanship training in line with that knowledge.

Fuchs

11-15-2010, 09:52 AM

Take a "loud" sergeant, go on the range with some troops in full kit (including vest and frag protection goggles), let them spend a magazine, log their results.

Then separate them and surprise one after another with the sergeant stressing them with very loud and aggressive as well as sudden talk and let him force the soldier to take cover, aim, interrupt with take cover, aim... - observe how the dispersion increases and changing magazines becomes an issue!

I myself are cold-blooded enough to crawl out of a car wreck, stay calm and go to work after delivering the wreck to a workshop - but I still don't know how much influence combat stress could have on me!

William F. Owen

11-15-2010, 10:20 AM

Take a "loud" sergeant, go on the range with some troops in full kit (including vest and frag protection goggles), let them spend a magazine, log their results.

Then separate them and surprise one after another with the sergeant stressing them with very loud and aggressive as well as sudden talk and let him force the soldier to take cover, aim, interrupt with take cover, aim... - observe how the dispersion increases and changing magazines becomes an issue!

All been done and very scientifically. There is just an emotional and organisational need to ignore the data.

Pete

11-15-2010, 04:05 PM

Marksmanship techniques learned during training reassert themselves once the adrenalin rush of "buck fever" has passed.

kaur

11-24-2010, 11:05 AM

jcustis

11-24-2010, 02:31 PM

http://b.imagehost.org/t/0058/Aussie-carrying-AK471-522x600.jpg (http://b.imagehost.org/view/0058/Aussie-carrying-AK471-522x600)

http://kitup.military.com/2010/11/imint-australian-sof-carrying-ak-47.html

Is this widespread trend there?

No, it isn't. He may be a member of a coalition special operations unit who has Afghans integrated into it.

kaur

11-24-2010, 05:30 PM

jcustis, why this kind of choice?

JMA

11-25-2010, 12:12 AM

We could make far better use of time and funds by rationalising marksmanship training in line with that knowledge.

How would you propose to do that?

JMA

11-25-2010, 12:14 AM

All been done and very scientifically.

By people who have never been in combat?

JMA

11-25-2010, 12:23 AM

No, it isn't. He may be a member of a coalition special operations unit who has Afghans integrated into it.

One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane.

jcustis

11-25-2010, 12:57 AM

jcustis, why this kind of choice?

I couldn't see the article text when I first looked at the picture link this morning, but I see now that his SOF status was explained already. My only guess is just as stated before...they may have Afghans integrated into the unit, and there is a point to him using what they use. I don't think that makes sense, mind you, but that is my best guess.

William F. Owen

11-25-2010, 05:51 AM

By people who have never been in combat?

In some case yes, .... but that misses the point. How people say they behave in combat, and how they actually did behave varies greatly. What people remember is also often contradicted by facts and empirical evidence.

Case in point being how well people shoot in combat and/or what actually happened as a result. As concerns combat marksmanship, testing shows a lot of people are lying their asses off.

SethB

11-25-2010, 06:55 AM

So what is your solution to marksmanship training?

JMA

11-25-2010, 07:16 AM

In some case yes, .... but that misses the point. How people say they behave in combat, and how they actually did behave varies greatly. What people remember is also often contradicted by facts and empirical evidence.

Case in point being how well people shoot in combat and/or what actually happened as a result. As concerns combat marksmanship, testing shows a lot of people are lying their asses off.

No sure that it misses the point at all. If such studies are run by those (or at least strongly influenced by those) who have much combat experience then there will be an understanding of the stresses under combat conditions which may be the cause of the drop in marksmanship in combat. Naturally when you speak to the troops about this it needs to be anonymous.

One trains soldiers on Drake/Cover shoots and Jungle Lanes to attempt to make the aimed shooting an instinctive reaction which for some does override the distractions of being under fire. It works for some but not for others.

To ask them in an interview situation what they did when they know what the answer should be is inviting them to lie.

It would be ideal to have a test for how people will behave/respond in combat and how they will be able to apply themselves to shooting in combat would be ideal... but there isn't. I hope some progress is being made though.

William F. Owen

11-25-2010, 08:04 AM

So what is your solution to marksmanship training?

On marksmanship alone (not weapons handling),
a.) Train for a quite limited test with individual weapons. Check and test that the soldier can group 10cm at 100m, and can thus zero his weapon.

b.) Then train him to score hits, from the standing position on a 0.5 x 1m target, exposed for 5 seconds at 100m. He can fire as many rounds as he wants. He just has to hit once. 10 exposures. 7 must show hits, to pass.

After that, expose him to a lot of CQB training and firing under field conditions, though would bring together marksmanship and weapons handling.

William F. Owen

11-25-2010, 08:13 AM

If such studies are run by those (or at least strongly influenced by those) who have much combat experience then there will be an understanding of the stresses under combat conditions which may be the cause of the drop in marksmanship in combat.
That's the logical ideal. Unfortunately combat experience is not a coherent experience. More over men, who can translate a very varied set of experiences in combat into training are very rare (Wigram, Jary etc).
Those who can translate the same into the conduct of trials and studies are incredibly rare.

JMA

11-25-2010, 11:22 AM

That's the logical ideal. Unfortunately combat experience is not a coherent experience. More over men, who can translate a very varied set of experiences in combat into training are very rare (Wigram, Jary etc).
Those who can translate the same into the conduct of trials and studies are incredibly rare.

I would love to see how they would design such a study.

JMA

11-25-2010, 11:30 AM

On marksmanship alone (not weapons handling),
a.) Train for a quite limited test with individual weapons. Check and test that the soldier can group 10cm at 100m, and can thus zero his weapon.

b.) Then train him to score hits, from the standing position on a 0.5 x 1m target, exposed for 5 seconds at 100m. He can fire as many rounds as he wants. He just has to hit once. 10 exposures. 7 must show hits, to pass.

After that, expose him to a lot of CQB training and firing under field conditions, though would bring together marksmanship and weapons handling.

OK I won't knit-pick the shoot but I would suggest that the individual's performance when contact is initiated for the first time is still uncertain.

tankersteve

11-25-2010, 01:51 PM

By JMA:

One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane.

Wow, that is a great method there - firing without trying to identify a target. Sounds like a great TTP for the COIN environmetn. When you are training and fighting with indigenous forces, and they are using AK-47s, perhaps IDing your target before you 'let rip' is the proper method. Your way doesn't sound like a very disciplined way to fight in the present environment.

JMA, while I respect your previous service in a tough war, often you seem to bring very little relevance to the discussion of the present fight. If it isn't the way you did it then, you give it very little credence. However, we have progressed mightily in what we knew from just 7 years ago, in equipment and training. If you aren't aware of the progress, your statements just look like baiting or an outdated view.

As for the Aussie being a 'poser' for carrying a local rifle, if you are patrolling with a local force as an advisor, and you have intentionally chosen pouches that allow various sizes of magazines, and you have trained to a good standard with that weapon system, carrying the same weapon makes excellent sense. Every weapon will now make the same sound. Ammunition can be shared. And you have shown your partners that you don't need a gee-whiz cool-guy gun (with $$$ lasers and stuff) to fight the same enemy that they are fighting. As JCustis says, 'Building wasta!'

In summation, you responded to a picture with little knowledge of the situation or current TTPs and why they might be applicable, because YOU never executed them. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Tankersteve

JMA

11-25-2010, 02:17 PM

By JMA:

"One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane."

Wow, that is a great method there - firing without trying to identify a target. Sounds like a great TTP for the COIN environmetn. When you are training and fighting with indigenous forces, and they are using AK-47s, perhaps IDing your target before you 'let rip' is the proper method. Your way doesn't sound like a very disciplined way to fight in the present environment.

JMA, while I respect your previous service in a tough war, often you seem to bring very little relevance to the discussion of the present fight. If it isn't the way you did it then, you give it very little credence. However, we have progressed mightily in what we knew from just 7 years ago, in equipment and training. If you aren't aware of the progress, your statements just look like baiting or an outdated view.

As for the Aussie being a 'poser' for carrying a local rifle, if you are patrolling with a local force as an advisor, and you have intentionally chosen pouches that allow various sizes of magazines, and you have trained to a good standard with that weapon system, carrying the same weapon makes excellent sense. Every weapon will now make the same sound. Ammunition can be shared. And you have shown your partners that you don't need a gee-whiz cool-guy gun (with $$$ lasers and stuff) to fight the same enemy that they are fighting. As JCustis says, 'Building wasta!'

In summation, you responded to a picture with little knowledge of the situation or current TTPs and why they might be applicable, because YOU never executed them. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Tankersteve

We seem to have "read" that photo differently, and I am not going to go after you for having done that.

Maybe you didn't see the second soldier and note that he was not carrying and AK. Explain that then?

When the majority of ones contacts are at less than 50m often less than 10m there is no time for pussy footing around. In fact I recall an external (Zambia) where a group of Selous Scouts (whites) arrived (in contradiction of the orders) with AKs and in gook kit. At some point they got in front of the SAS and got shot up to hell and back. Served the posers right. We had plenty of posers in my little war and they are a type which can be spotted a mile off. There were units which attracted posers and those that chased their asses away. Posing is an attempt to seem more than what you really are. Do you really what that type anywhere near you in a fire fight?

As to where things stand today. The consensus is that while the kit has vastly improved due to the kit burden and the reduced standard of individual training the operational performance is sub optimal.

As one of the contributors here states that one needs to be thankful that today's Taliban are such poor soldiers... I can say the same in respect of my little war.

There are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many are being sent home either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area? If the answer is less than a platoons worth a week you have a bigger problem that you may care to admit.

82redleg

11-25-2010, 02:54 PM

As to where things stand today. The consensus is that while the kit has vastly improved due to the kit burden and the reduced standard of individual training the operational performance is sub optimal.

In general, yes. In the specific case of high-end SOF, I'm not sure that most here would agree with your contention. I've never been around Aussie SOF, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but they have a good reputation.

There are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many are being sent home either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area? If the answer is less than a platoons worth a week you have a bigger problem that you may care to admit.

Care to explain this? I don't understand why we should be sending 40 or so guys home every week under arrest.

Ken White

11-25-2010, 06:44 PM

New film from Tarantino. :D

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy. Your point on signatures is valid -- in close terrain and at close range. Afghanistan doesn't offer much of either. Further, mission dependent, he may have wanted to send a false signature image... :cool:

Most of the SOF guys are working with Afghans 'by direction of' so the fact that no Afghans were shown in the picture proves nothing. The fact is the guy carried a weapon he wanted to or believed he should use and idle, ill informed, speculative, arm chair kibitizing adds nothing other than pixels to any discussion .

Nor does it prove anything except that, as Tanker Steve pointed out and as I told you months ago, good experience in one war does not automatically translate into correct or even reasonable answers for another. :rolleyes:

On the innuendo front, as for the "platoon's worth a week," I presume you can provide links or some proof that purports to support that rather sweeping accusation? Or is that too experience derived from one war...

SethB

11-25-2010, 06:56 PM

On marksmanship alone (not weapons handling),
a.) Train for a quite limited test with individual weapons. Check and test that the soldier can group 10cm at 100m, and can thus zero his weapon.

That is a 3.9 inch group at 100M. To put that in perspective, acceptance standard for an M4 carbine is about 4 MOA. Which is just slightly larger than the group that you are proposing that Soldiers be able to shoot.

That doesn't add up.

The current US Army standard is 4CM at 25M. Much more realistic.

I can shoot the kinds of groups that you want, but I wouldn't want to do it without the advantage of a rifle that was up to it.

Rex Brynen

11-25-2010, 07:40 PM

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy.

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go... :wry:

JMA

11-26-2010, 01:12 AM

That is a 3.9 inch group at 100M. To put that in perspective, acceptance standard for an M4 carbine is about 4 MOA. Which is just slightly larger than the group that you are proposing that Soldiers be able to shoot.

That doesn't add up.

The current US Army standard is 4CM at 25M. Much more realistic.

I can shoot the kinds of groups that you want, but I wouldn't want to do it without the advantage of a rifle that was up to it.

Wilf is correct in that to properly zero a weapon at 100m you need to group five rounds into a 4 inch (10cm) circle.

At 25m that translates to 1 inch (2.5cm).

The above is with iron sights - with optics the groups on a range from the prone position should be tighter.

JMA

11-26-2010, 01:29 AM

In general, yes. In the specific case of high-end SOF, I'm not sure that most here would agree with your contention. I've never been around Aussie SOF, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but they have a good reputation.

Was "my contention" limited to high-end SOF? So lets stick with your "in general" agreement with my overall contention shall we?

Care to explain this? I don't understand why we should be sending 40 or so guys home every week under arrest.

Do try to be accurate. I said "...either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area?".

The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Then you need to add to that those soldiers who are sent home for operational offenses from cowardice to refusing to follow a legal command (probably also under close arrest).

Than the last category would be those who just flat out fail to perform operationally or develop (real or contrived) emotional problems while in theatre.

I am aware that the Brits have sent officers and senior NCOs home where they have failed to perform operationally. I am assuming the same has applied to troopies who just don't cut it.

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home.

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?

JMA

11-26-2010, 01:36 AM

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy. Your point on signatures is valid -- in close terrain and at close range. Afghanistan doesn't offer much of either. Further, mission dependent, he may have wanted to send a false signature image... :cool:.

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?

OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?

Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".

Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?

PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.

82redleg

11-26-2010, 02:48 AM

Was "my contention" limited to high-end SOF? So lets stick with your "in general" agreement with my overall contention shall we?[quote]

But the photo is a SOF operator, so its irrelevant to your contention (which I happen to agree with).

[quote]The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Then you need to add to that those soldiers who are sent home for operational offenses from cowardice to refusing to follow a legal command (probably also under close arrest).

I had 75 men in my battery- in 12 months, none of them committed this type of offense. Neither did any of the men in my BN, or in the infantry BN that I supported. This is 1000 men, give or take, in 12 months. We must have been lucky none of them committed any crimes of this type.

Than the last category would be those who just flat out fail to perform operationally or develop (real or contrived) emotional problems while in theatre.

I am aware that the Brits have sent officers and senior NCOs home where they have failed to perform operationally. I am assuming the same has applied to troopies who just don't cut it.

I don't know about Brit practice. We don't send people home- we reassign them to a job that they can handle. Why should the less capable get over. THere are plenty of jobs that need doing.

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home.

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?

Ken White

11-26-2010, 02:56 AM

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?Seemingly unlike some, I'm most always happy. :D
OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?I'm quite happy that a reasonably well trained guy on the ground will select and use the weapons he believes is best suited for the particular job at hand; say a raid on a compound where some CQB might be the order of the day. I also suspect he would, quite properly, pay little attention to the thoughts of someone several thousand miles away.
Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".Coulda, woulda -- WE (that includes you) do not know why he had the weapon. You are of course free to indulge in idle speculation. We all have our strengths.
Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?I suspect because the comment was unnecessary and you have a penchant for making disparaging innuendos that strike at anyone or anything that is not the way you believe (sometimes sensibly, sometimes not) it should be or that they should act. Add to that much of such comment is obviously from a point of relative ignorance of the Afghan theater and I suppose that's why he reacted the way he did. I wouldn't say you touched a nerve, I'd say you made an ill informed and speculative somewhat derogatory comment, one of your frequent attacks by innuendo and that you simply got called on it...
PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.As on so many things. Obviously. Here you go, results of a less than three minute Google search.

I'm sure your eagle eye will note that the Australians depicted in both pictures are carrying the Stryne infantry's standard issue F88 (Steyr AUG) as opposed to the original pictures second SOF guys M4 like weapon. What that means is that the SOF guys -- Stryne and Afghan -- carry M4 / M16 mods (or whatever they want...) while the regular Infantry is armed with the F88 for the guys from Oz and -- as seen in the pictures below -- the non SOF Afghans still mostly have AKs at this time, though that is changing fairly rapidly (thus my comment that the original pic guy may have wanted to apply a different signature...).

Ken White

11-26-2010, 03:47 AM

"...either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area?"...The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.Or perhaps not...

So in other words you have no evidence to bolster your idle provocation. You then compound that with this:
I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home. (emphasis added / kw)That's fair game for discussion but the way you posted it becomes still more idle speculation stated as ostensible fact and which is really derogatory innuendo and apparently purposely worded to be provoking. That is not conducive to reasonable and civil discussion. But then, you knew that...

This:
... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?is certainly a legitimate question and since we all know that rarely if ever in any war is everything fine and dandy, what is a legitimate question becomes due to your phrasing and placement simply another bit bit of provoking innuendo.

There are many issues pertaining to Afghanistan that merit informed and sensible discussion. You have proven you are quite capable of that. You can add much value to this board. You are also capable of getting unduly combative (on a message board, for chrissake...:rolleyes:) and are prone to cheap shots and ill informed comments. That's unnecessary and thus you can also be an undesirable distraction on this board. The choice is yours...

Pete

11-26-2010, 04:28 AM

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go... :wry:
I think that the rabbit in Ken's avatar has something to do with the old Playboy magazine. There are a lot of things young people these days today don't remember -- tonight when I watched Ava Gardner and Richard Burton in the film "Night of the Iguana" she shaved him with one of those old razors that you had to put a razor blade inside. When I was a kid we had Burma Shave signs, airplanes had things that went round and round, and LBJ used to have "Fireside Chats" with us on black-and-white TV. Back wthen there were Model Ts Fords on the road and many of them had "Impeach Earl Warren" bumperstickers on them, partiularly in Texas.

Pete

11-26-2010, 04:58 AM

Ken has probably heard all he can stand about the First World War U.S. Army, but during that war the safety razor was Army issue, and afterwards straight razors died out within 20 years. I can't remember whether it was Gilette or Schick, but it was one of the old major brands.

Ken White

11-26-2010, 05:01 AM

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go... :wry:Absolutely not.

I have it on good authority that there are Rabbits and parachutes in Canada. That from my son who visited the PPCLI in Edmonton in 2006, saw the expected the Rabbits but thought the Parachutes died with the CAR. He was pleased to find out there were some still around. He also noted that "Canadian women are sort of forward." He didn't expand on that and I didn't ask but it sounds like a trait you and I could and should explore. Therefor you you can pick on our flawed Airplane doctrine and / or the Conejo Paracaidista -- If I can remember why I thought that comment on your local fauna might be of interest to me...:confused:

Casual and aside note for Pete. Partly correct on the Playboy Bunny. The avatar relates to a set of circumstances, a parachute jump, a bottle of I.W. Harper and a radio call sign in one Small War. It seemed appropriate for here.

Casual and aside note for Seth B, JMA and Wilf. I'm inclined to agree and to disagree with you. 10cm at 100 meters is totally valid IMO but I also realize our 'standard' for the current weapon is based on its capability and that means for us the ordained (not desired) accuracy really sorta has to be a greater spread. Whether that is an appropriate rationale and standard or not is open to discussion. IMO it is not but it is reality at this time. So 12-16cm at 100m would be more realistic.

I personally have grave reservations on the accuracy and combat applicability of a 25m / 1,000" zero. That bogus 'standard' was introduced partly due to the loss of real estate for range use due to a number of pressures. It was also partly introduced because it is easier on the Trainers...

It really has little validity (not least because on many posts, the ranges are really 1,000 inches or 25.4m...) and replaced the old 200 yd (not 100) zero which was a far better combat zero in most -- not all -- terrain. So FWIW, I'd also run Wilf's standard out to 200m and 15-20cm. ;)

In theory, a 25m (or even a 25.4m ;) ) zero should translate mathematically and mechanically to greater ranges, in practice, for a variety of reasons -- mostly but not all shooter induced -- it is not consistently reliable. Both Shooters and Weapons have personalities and real physical differences. So does the weather and the wind...

The biggest flaw with the Task, Condition, Standard process is that conditions vary wildly and widely from time to time, war to war and situation to situation. The solution to this is to make the conditions in training super hard -- however, that makes more work for the Trainers, who object. Strenuously...

One should always make the training standard harder, not easier, than combat. If a person can meet a really tough standard in training, he or she will have better prospects in combat. To my knowledge, the UK RM SBS is the only force that routinely practices this. OTOH, our current process of low standards to achieve high 'Go' rates in training breeds complaisance and problems.

Pete

11-26-2010, 06:32 AM

That sounds like one of those "You had to be there" situations.

William F. Owen

11-26-2010, 03:13 PM

Just to clarify:

a.) The 10cm at 100m (4 inches at 100 yards) has been the UK grouping requirement since at least 1921. It is done prone, and it is done to zero the weapon. Works for iron sights, optics, and even Thermal Imagers.

b.) The basic Marksmanship ship test I proposed, assumes that zeroing the weapon is not a problem or a challenge. It is intended for a 5.56mm IW with optics. It is done STANDING, not prone.

jcustis

11-26-2010, 04:59 PM

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?

OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?

Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".

Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?

PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.

JMA,

Ken is right, you are coming across as just unnecessarily abrasive.

Look, here's the deal:

-That Aussie, if in fact a SOF guy, probably doesn't need a medium to long range weapon. Why? Because he isn't fighting at those ranges, but probably handling his business direct action-style, and at conversational distance.
-That guy, while partnered with Afghans, probably isn't even all that much of a mentor as he is a partnered troop working with the highest-caliber Afghan soldier. These are not random ANA troops he is working besides.
-The writer of the short article where the picture was initially posted said it himself. After perusing 100's of photographs of SOF operators, this was the first one reviewed where an AK was carried outside of the training aspect. It is therefore highly likely...in fact almost certain...that there is a specific reason why this lad had an AK on his person.

Pete

11-26-2010, 09:59 PM

jcustis

11-26-2010, 10:07 PM

One of the things I disliked about the Train Fire pop-up target ranges during my service in '77-'84 was the inability to look at your shot groups. We could do it on the Canadian bull zero targets, but that was all. Things may have changed since then. There is a use for the old round bull's-eye targets when it comes to marksmanship, even though combat isn't like that.

They have not changed, at least not for the majority of the reactive ranges (RETS) that at least the Corps still uses.

We have recently started to utilize Larue battery-powered steel poppers that are a reduced profile target. A hit means that you put the round someplace in a very small zone. Under goggles, you can even see the ensuing spark. These are a significant improvement over the "crazy Ivan".

Pete

11-26-2010, 10:28 PM

A personal problem of mine is that my ability to concentrate varies considerably -- during a game of pool I'll sink five balls in a row and then scratch on the eight-ball. When shooting looking at a paper target lets you see how you're screwing up. If you're in the habit of calling your shots you can usually see where each of them went when you see them on paper.

The problem with letting gun nuts have too great a role in designing marksmanship training is that they never think enough is enough, whereas the training and personnel guys want to give it three weeks to run people through the pipeline. The very complicated ladder rear sight on the old Springfield M1903 is an example of what happens when the gun nuts with amber shooting glasses are allowed to take over the asylum.

JMA

11-27-2010, 01:12 PM

On marksmanship alone (not weapons handling),
a.) Train for a quite limited test with individual weapons. Check and test that the soldier can group 10cm at 100m, and can thus zero his weapon.

b.) Then train him to score hits, from the standing position on a 0.5 x 1m target, exposed for 5 seconds at 100m. He can fire as many rounds as he wants. He just has to hit once. 10 exposures. 7 must show hits, to pass.

After that, expose him to a lot of CQB training and firing under field conditions, though would bring together marksmanship and weapons handling.

OK, now this.

I speak of CQB or other short range contact firing and use what I believe was common to Brit training of that time.

The first guide was instinctive shooting and the use of a double tap.

Another: Your sights in blur, your target in clear.

And: Look at what you are shooting at, not at what you are shooting with.

Now this is all iron sights stuff. Optics for short range? Not sold on that.

JMA

11-27-2010, 01:56 PM

JMA,

Ken is right, you are coming across as just unnecessarily abrasive.

Look, here's the deal:

-That Aussie, if in fact a SOF guy, probably doesn't need a medium to long range weapon. Why? Because he isn't fighting at those ranges, but probably handling his business direct action-style, and at conversational distance.
-That guy, while partnered with Afghans, probably isn't even all that much of a mentor as he is a partnered troop working with the highest-caliber Afghan soldier. These are not random ANA troops he is working besides.
-The writer of the short article where the picture was initially posted said it himself. After perusing 100's of photographs of SOF operators, this was the first one reviewed where an AK was carried outside of the training aspect. It is therefore highly likely...in fact almost certain...that there is a specific reason why this lad had an AK on his person.

Jon, the overreaction was silly.

I said the following: One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

Man am I glad I didn't use the word "kit freak".

JMA

11-27-2010, 02:27 PM

10cm at 100 meters is totally valid IMO but I also realize our 'standard' for the current weapon is based on its capability and that means for us the ordained (not desired) accuracy really sorta has to be a greater spread. Whether that is an appropriate rationale and standard or not is open to discussion. IMO it is not but it is reality at this time. So 12-16cm at 100m would be more realistic.

Wow.

Quite honestly if a soldier can't get to a 4" group from the prone position on a range at 100m then, a) either you fire the instructor or b) you take the soldiers rifle away and issue him a machete.

From his grouping ability his ESA (expected scoring area) at ranges going out from there can be calculated. When a hit on a target at 300m can't be guaranteed then you are on a hiding to nothing.

I find it hard to believe that either weapon accuracy or ammunition consistency are factors in the US army in therms of the Theory of Small Arms Fire. Shooter's ability and weather yes. Other two no.

Ken White

11-27-2010, 04:48 PM

Wow...Quite honestly if a soldier can't get to a 4" group from the prone position on a range at 100m then...The soldier isn't the issue, the weapon and ammunition are. You obviously failed to note that I agreed with you on that standard but stated that the reality was the weapon was not capable of doing that. It should be but it flat is not.
I find it hard to believe that either weapon accuracy or ammunition consistency are factors in the US army in therms of the Theory of Small Arms Fire. Shooter's ability and weather yes. Other two no.Has nothing to do with theory, which I note you are quite strong on. Has everything to do with reality, the laws of physics -- and politics. :(

Here's (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) a quote from the Wiki:
"As with many carbines, the M4 is handy and more convenient to carry than a full-length rifle. The price is slightly inferior ballistic performance compared to the full-size M16, with its nearly 6" (15 cm) longer barrel. This becomes most apparent at ranges of 300 yards and beyond. Statistically, however, most small-arms engagements occur within 100 yards.[citation needed] This means that the M4 is very much an adequate weapon for the majority of troops. The marginal sacrifice in terminal ballistics and range, in exchange for greatly improved handling characteristics, is usually thought to be a worthwhile compromise." (emphasis add / kw)All the items I placed in bold contribute to mediocre performance and the use of the words "slightly inferior" and "marginal Sacrifice" are very much subjective -- as is the "greatly improved handling." Note particularly the last quoted sentence. That statement may be correct for the Generals who like handiness and don't have to worry about the extremely poor ballistics and accuracy. You don't have to worry about that either.

Unfortunately, the kid who has to zero a marginal weapon suffers some degradation. :rolleyes:

Here's a LINK (http://www.scribd.com/doc/12890325/Army-M4-Carbine-556MM) to the contract specification, scroll down to Paragraph 3.4.6. Note the diagram. With a requirement that sloppy, it's a minor miracle to be able to get a 4" / 10.16cm group at 91m / 100yds. The fact that most can do it is a saving grace but does not excuse the poor performance of the weapon or, more so, its ammunition. Note also that every weapon is not tested (Table 2 at Paragraph 4.5.2.4.), merely selected numbers from a production batch. That process can be and is gamed by manufacturers...

It is an adequate combat weapon but only barely and is just another example of the extreme and unhelpful politicization of US defense procurement policies added to penury on important things that fail to rise to and adequate level of importance in the eyes of the unknowing. Or uncaring... :mad:

Yet again an idealized view crashes head on into a reality that differs... ;)

JMA

11-28-2010, 09:00 AM

The soldier isn't the issue, the weapon and ammunition are. You obviously failed to note that I agreed with you on that standard but stated that the reality was the weapon was not capable of doing that. It should be but it flat is not.Has nothing to do with theory, which I note you are quite strong on. Has everything to do with reality, the laws of physics -- and politics. :(

And I am not convinced that the problem you report on the quality of the M4 and issued ammunition is of the scale that requires the relaxation of the 4" weapon zeroing requirement at 100m by more than 50% to max allowable 6.3"

Here's (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) a quote from the Wiki:All the items I placed in bold contribute to mediocre performance and the use of the words "slightly inferior" and "marginal Sacrifice" are very much subjective -- as is the "greatly improved handling." Note particularly the last quoted sentence. That statement may be correct for the Generals who like handiness and don't have to worry about the extremely poor ballistics and accuracy. You don't have to worry about that either.

That quote from Wikipedia has no citation (so carriers no authority), sorry.

But, if we are to take use of the words "slightly" and "marginal" into account then it does not lead to your use of "extremely poor ballistics and accuracy" and the relaxation of the zeroing requirement by 50%.

Unfortunately, the kid who has to zero a marginal weapon suffers some degradation. :rolleyes:

OK, just how marginal this weapon is in terms of accuracy for the purpose of a series of 5 round groups at 100m is yet to be determined. What we know is that the vast majority of soldiers need to work at the marksmanship ability with the help of good coaching and much practice... (and that is not theoretical)

Here's a LINK (http://www.scribd.com/doc/12890325/Army-M4-Carbine-556MM) to the contract specification, scroll down to Paragraph 3.4.6. Note the diagram. With a requirement that sloppy, it's a minor miracle to be able to get a 4" / 10.16cm group at 91m / 100yds. The fact that most can do it is a saving grace but does not excuse the poor performance of the weapon or, more so, its ammunition. Note also that every weapon is not tested (Table 2 at Paragraph 4.5.2.4.), merely selected numbers from a production batch. That process can be and is gamed by manufacturers...

That I see as being the specification. I would guess that most weapons perform better than that. I do however agree that to allow this poor performance to make it into the specification should be a concern.

It is an adequate combat weapon but only barely and is just another example of the extreme and unhelpful politicization of US defense procurement policies added to penury on important things that fail to rise to and adequate level of importance in the eyes of the unknowing. Or uncaring... :mad:

A nation gets the politicians they deserve (after all they elect them) and its rather disappointing to see a clearly out of control procurement system operating to the detriment of the armed forces. Maybe the military needs to be a little more shall we say... abrasive, in order to put things right?

Yet again an idealized view crashes head on into a reality that differs... ;)

Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.

No idealised view here Ken. I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.

William F. Owen

11-28-2010, 10:23 AM

Now this is all iron sights stuff. Optics for short range? Not sold on that.
How much shooting with modern combat optics, or NVGs have you done?

120mm

11-28-2010, 11:49 AM

To think I, in my poser-like way, went on patrol on Thanksgiving day, with my issued Serb M92 "Krinkov", with an OGA guy and his HK416 and another three-letter guy with his M4, accompanied by Belgians with their FN rifles, as well as Germans with G36s and a combination of ANA, ANP and Arbaki with Hungarian and Soviet copies of AKs.

It's hard to understand what is the exception and what is the rule these days in Afghanistan.

82redleg

11-28-2010, 02:47 PM

Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.

No idealised view here Ken. I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.

Now you're just talking out your 4th point of contact. I can shoot quite a bit better than 4 inches at 100 yards, but if the rifle doesn't perform that well, then the rifle doesn't perform that well. Most rifles should, but I haven't shot every M4, and Ken's post on the specs says what the standard for the rifle is. We can expect the riflemen to improve the mechanical performance of the rifle, only to meet it, no matter how good the rifleman is.

And, so I don't have to reply to your next post. 1x and 1.5x, parrallax free optics greatly speed the ability to engage close targets. Even 3x - 4x, of the correct type (ACOGs using BAC, for example) don't result in any degradation, as long as the skill is properly trained. Of course, engaging rapidly with iron sights is a skill that must be trained, too.

Ken White

11-28-2010, 03:15 PM

That I see as being the specification. I would guess that most weapons perform better than that. I do however agree that to allow this poor performance to make it into the specification should be a concern.That's all I said...
That quote from Wikipedia has no citation (so carriers no authority), sorry.I don't believe anyone would ever deem the Wiki to be authoritative in any case. I certainly do not. The quoted "slightly" and my "extremely" are interpretations and opinions. The actuality is likely somewhere in between as is usual. What is your experience with the weapon -- and the particular weapon is the issue, not the shooters or weapons in general -- in question?

At any rate your acknowledgement that it is a cause for concern is precisely what I contended.

I'll also note that the majority of your pronouncements also carry no citation so can we assess them as not carrying any authority. :wry:
A nation gets the politicians they deserve (after all they elect them) and its rather disappointing to see a clearly out of control procurement system operating to the detriment of the armed forces. Maybe the military needs to be a little more shall we say... abrasive, in order to put things right?If you from a distance think it's disappointing, you should try living with it. The military tradition in this country does not tend to abrasiveness with the elected civilian 'leadership' and we prefer it that way, YMMV. Speaking of politicians, how were and are all yours doing? :D
Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.My, the perfect solution. Why didn't we think of that...

No indeed, not everything is negotiable -- nor is everything perfect when humans are involved. That's reality, not negotiation. One copes and does ones best at ignoring the armchair critics ungrounded in distant realities.
No idealised view here Ken.Really? Boy, you fooled me...
I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.And that's not an idealized view? Heh. In any event, I agree in theory. However, the reality is that most nations have done that to one degree or another for Centuries as hundreds of millions throughout history -- less you, apparently -- have experienced. I doubt we'll see much change in that.

JMA

11-28-2010, 08:18 PM

Now you're just talking out your 4th point of contact. I can shoot quite a bit better than 4 inches at 100 yards, but if the rifle doesn't perform that well, then the rifle doesn't perform that well. Most rifles should, but I haven't shot every M4, and Ken's post on the specs says what the standard for the rifle is. We can expect the riflemen to improve the mechanical performance of the rifle, only to meet it, no matter how good the rifleman is.

OK let me help you here.

Lets assume that one of the M4s issued to one of your soldiers is really inaccurate. The first thing that will become apparent is that the soldier will appear to be unable to shoot at all accurately. So what are your options?

Same instructor/coach for a bunch of guys. So the instructor takes the weapon and shoots a few five round groups himself. He knows his ability and if it proves to be the weapon you arrange a swap out from the armoury. If it is not the weapon you get back to dealing with the soldier and coach him to improve.

The instructors test is the fall back position to confirm whether its the weapon or the soldier.

Now that was not so hard was it?

Fuchs

11-28-2010, 08:23 PM

Red tape.

Ken White

11-28-2010, 10:44 PM

Plus time and the number of trainees vs. facility availability. But mostly red tape...:o

JMA

11-29-2010, 09:17 AM

Red tape.

Red Tape (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/r.html): The bureaucratic inconvenience one must suffer (forms to be filled out and approved, etc.) in order to get action by an organization. Most often, the action is just permission to do something, and the organization is an agency of government.

JMA

11-29-2010, 08:44 PM

How much shooting with modern combat optics, or NVGs have you done?

None in combat.

My concern remains with the effect on peripheral vision. As does my concern about blocking out the hearing in one ear with a radio ear piece effect the soldiers situational awareness.

120mm

12-01-2010, 11:38 AM

None in combat.

My concern remains with the effect on peripheral vision. As does my concern about blocking out the hearing in one ear with a radio ear piece effect the soldiers situational awareness.

For the red dot and holographic sights, peripheral vision is a non-issue. These sights are designed to be used with both eyes open and have zero effect on peripheral vision. In fact, any modern combat optical sight up to 4 power can be used with both eyes open.

Modern ear muffs even come with electronic attenuators which can actually amplify tactical hearing while automatically protecting/cancelling sharp, ear damaging noises. No reason whatsoever a commo rig couldn't be equipped the same.

JMA

12-01-2010, 01:13 PM

For the red dot and holographic sights, peripheral vision is a non-issue. These sights are designed to be used with both eyes open and have zero effect on peripheral vision. In fact, any modern combat optical sight up to 4 power can be used with both eyes open.

OK I'm talking about standard issue optical sights (as the Brits have) and whether the training is in fact conducted on on the basis of shooting with both eyes open.

Secondly when there is a free-for-all with regard to use of customising kit for weapons what training is carried out by the individual? Who supervises and quality controls this training on this customised weapon? Or is the individual soldier is allowed to do what he pleases and when he likes?

Modern ear muffs even come with electronic attenuators which can actually amplify tactical hearing while automatically protecting/cancelling sharp, ear damaging noises. No reason whatsoever a commo rig couldn't be equipped the same.

Yes that has been said before but as of now the Brits sacrifice the hearing of their left ear by using an external covering ear piece. I guess the reason why a non uncompetitive audio enhancing ear piece is not yet available to all is because the current crop of soldiers do not have the balls to tell the generals to either give them the proper stuff or to go shove it.

120mm

12-01-2010, 06:23 PM

OK I'm talking about standard issue optical sights (as the Brits have) and whether the training is in fact conducted on on the basis of shooting with both eyes open.

Well, I'm talking about standard issue optical sights (as the Americans have). And, yes, training is supposed to be conducted on the basis of shooting with both eyes open. Unfortunately, sometimes training is lacking among US soldiers and their chain of command. Our local unit runs M68 CCOs mounted all the way to the rear by some ignorant armorer/commanders' policy, as if they were hunting scopes.

Secondly when there is a free-for-all with regard to use of customising kit for weapons what training is carried out by the individual? Who supervises and quality controls this training on this customised weapon? Or is the individual soldier is allowed to do what he pleases and when he likes?

There is no "free for all". In high end units, soldiers are considered to be adult human beings and not cannon fodder to be trained to wipe their *ss. In lower end units, standardization rules the day, more or less.

Yes that has been said before but as of now the Brits sacrifice the hearing of their left ear by using an external covering ear piece. I guess the reason why a non uncompetitive audio enhancing ear piece is not yet available to all is because the current crop of soldiers do not have the balls to tell the generals to either give them the proper stuff or to go shove it.

IntelTrooper

12-01-2010, 11:44 PM

JMA

12-02-2010, 07:59 AM

Well, I'm talking about standard issue optical sights (as the Americans have). And, yes, training is supposed to be conducted on the basis of shooting with both eyes open. Unfortunately, sometimes training is lacking among US soldiers and their chain of command. Our local unit runs M68 CCOs mounted all the way to the rear by some ignorant armorer/commanders' policy, as if they were hunting scopes.

Where training and control is lacking that is where the "posers" can come into their own. I am a little lost that there may be units out there somewhere which do not keep a tight grip on their training especially in wartime.

There is no "free for all". In high end units, soldiers are considered to be adult human beings and not cannon fodder to be trained to wipe their *ss. In lower end units, standardization rules the day, more or less.

Well if you separate out the high-end units what about the fish-and-chip units?

OK so you are in a high end unit and one of your men comes up to you and says he wants to carry an AK from now on (fitted with all the bells and whistles). You would ask him how he arrived at that decision and can he provide a technical justification, yes? And you would expect him to have an intelligent and persuasive argument, yes? And the introduction of different ammo would not worry you at all?

SethB

12-02-2010, 02:16 PM

JMA

12-02-2010, 03:10 PM

JMA, diagnosing the rifle is easy. But if the rifle is in-spec, what are you going to do? #### another one?

Replacement barrels are not gauged for accuracy at all. Which means a replacement barrel could well be worse.

In order to change that one thing, you'd have to upset the whole system.

Which isn't to say that it ought not be done, just that it would be a difficult process.

I am more than a little surprised that so many seem to just accept an unacceptable situation.

I don't know what percentage of a battalions worth of M4s would be delinquent. But start off by issuing those (once identified) to the cooks/clerks/bottle washers, if there are still some more then start issuing them to the sons of generals and serving soldiers in descending order of rank.

If there are still more then invite the New York Times over for a range day and show them what you are having to put up l with in todays US military.

...then of course you could always leak the information to that crowd on the Internet (WikiLeaks).

PS: There would be a system for back-loading broken, damaged or beyond local repair rifles for base repair of replacement. Ask any Sergeant Major how to "arrange" that for you.

Fuchs

12-02-2010, 03:45 PM

Standard assault rifles cost only about a week's pay nowadays. The detachable gadgets are the cost issue.

The procurement system and bean counters might someday understand this fact and begin to treat an assault rifle as what it is: Less costly than a single dumb artillery shell. There's no reason why assault rifles should not be treated like consumables and replaced in one to two decade cycles.

SethB

12-03-2010, 02:49 AM

JMA

12-04-2010, 07:29 AM

While Fuchs is correct that rifles are consumables, it remains the case that you have to tighten the standard in order to get an improvement.

There are, of course, ways to do that...

But it isn't at the NCO level. Nor at the JO level.

So until someone with a few stars on his chest wakes up angry and makes the change, it is what it is.

We can't get rid of magazines that don't work. Rifles? No way.

Amazing to see the "can do" nation giving up so easily on such an important matter. Sad really.

Why not consider inviting the good folks from Colt to a Christmas party and once they have all arrived at the venue you get some of the troopies to secure the exits, then have a little heart to heart chat with these people who probably count themselves as US patriots.

(only half serious)

120mm

12-04-2010, 08:06 AM

Amazing to see the "can do" nation giving up so easily on such an important matter. Sad really.

Why not consider inviting the good folks from Colt to a Christmas party and once they have all arrived at the venue you get some of the troopies to secure the exits, then have a little heart to heart chat with these people who probably count themselves as US patriots.

(only half serious)

First of all, it's the way the Army accounts for weapons. It's not Colt, or FN's "fault".

The only material defect rifles and carbines I have EVER seen have been contract rebuilt rifles.

Colt and FN deliver an outstanding carbine and rifle, respectively.

This is not "turning in Spenser carbines to get 1873 trapdoor Springfields", no matter what the pantie wetters like to say. There is not revolutionary or even significantly evolutionary "better gun" out there.

The so-called "better guns" are like the backup QB to a losing football team. They are only "better" because we haven't seen their large scale issues, yet.

JMA

12-04-2010, 10:40 AM

First of all, it's the way the Army accounts for weapons. It's not Colt, or FN's "fault".

The only material defect rifles and carbines I have EVER seen have been contract rebuilt rifles.

Colt and FN deliver an outstanding carbine and rifle, respectively.

This is not "turning in Spenser carbines to get 1873 trapdoor Springfields", no matter what the pantie wetters like to say. There is not revolutionary or even significantly evolutionary "better gun" out there.

The so-called "better guns" are like the backup QB to a losing football team. They are only "better" because we haven't seen their large scale issues, yet.

You make yoyur point but I'm not sure how many will agree out there...

Fuchs

12-04-2010, 11:41 AM

120mm

12-04-2010, 01:26 PM

Colt isn't exactly a top-notch arms company, but they're certainly better than the bureaucracy.

Okay... I'll bite. How does Colt fail, as a top-notch arms company? I'm not a Colt defender by any means, but am interested in what objective data is out there to support this.

Fuchs

12-04-2010, 02:29 PM

Lack of evidence for superior marketing skill (as FNH and HK have), superior production efficiency or intellectual property for some superior product - they're large thanks to their huge home market and they're mediocre.

They're not innovative either, even the old copycats of ST Kinetics are now more innovative.

Colt Defence's military & laws enforcement product range is basically the AR-15 system, the AR-15 system and three times again the AR-15 system. Several variations of a half century-old product.

There's nothing special about modern Colt at all.

If I had to give a military small arms development contract to a company, I'd easily prefer companies from South Africa, Singapore, Israel and even Russia over Colt.

120mm

12-04-2010, 04:12 PM

Lack of evidence for superior marketing skill (as FNH and HK have), superior production efficiency or intellectual property for some superior product - they're large thanks to their huge home market and they're mediocre.

I will definitely grant you HK has a superior marketing system. They surely do not earn their market share through customer service/customer support. In fact, HK pretty much refuses to stand behind their product, which is, admittedly, a very well built product.

FNH is doing "okay". They've fielded a lot of products, lately, though, that have made zero market impact, or were crappy, such as anything that involve 5.7mm ammunition. FS2000 is also a problem child. It works well when it works, but malfunctions are pretty much a "you are done" issue.

They're not innovative either, even the old copycats of ST Kinetics are now more innovative.

Colt Defence's military & laws enforcement product range is basically the AR-15 system, the AR-15 system and three times again the AR-15 system. Several variations of a half century-old product.

There's nothing special about modern Colt at all.

If I had to give a military small arms development contract to a company, I'd easily prefer companies from South Africa, Singapore, Israel and even Russia over Colt.

Too bad the AR-15 system does nearly everything as well or better than nearly anything out there, more simply, cheaper, ergonomic and with excellent parts availability, support and modularity. There is a reason why it's a popular system.

I think you are mistaking innovation with "smoke and mirrors" caused by a technology (shoulder fired magazine fed cased ammunition launching individual arms) that is mature and really doesn't have that much more room for improvement. Nearly all of the "new" technologies are much, much older than the AR-15 system.

Ken White

12-04-2010, 05:29 PM

You make yoyur point but I'm not sure how many will agree out there...Most will agree. Only professional quibblers get their shorts in a wad over things that do not effect them. Really dedicated ones even get wrapped around the axle over things that they cannot effect...

The US Army and Marines and their direct supporters from the other services field about 300K Riflemen to whom that Rifle is indeed the most important thing in the world. When they're in combat -- the rest of the time, it's not terribly important to them. Even when combat is ongoing, that weapon isn't terribly important to the vast majority of the other 306,700,000 Americans. Whether it should be or not isn't an issue, it is not.

You can get exercised over your beliefs even if they are generally inaccurate but the fact remains that less than One Tenth of One Percent of the US population is intimately involved with the perceived problems with our basic issue weapon. Expand that to all like thee and me who are concerned and you still have less than one percent of Americans and others who are or might be perturbed. Thus the amount of energy, funds and concern expended is going to be small. It's not proportional, due to the added emphasis on the combat factor it gets precedence over many things but there are other larger concerns for the nation as a whole. The bottom line is that 120mm has it right, the weapon is adequate; not great but adequate.

Your experience in an existential war colors your thinking and logically so. We've done those and our thinking in them was vastly different than it is in the smaller wars that we engage in from time to time. Sad to say but for the broader US, Afghanistan is not much more than a side show and the resource commitment -- about $ 220B will be spent this fiscal year by all US government agencies in or more or less directly related to Afghanistan -- that's only about 6% of the Federal budget and less than 1.5% of GDP. It involves about 100K people, less than a third of a tenth of a percent of the US population. Resources of all types are based on numbers. Always. That's reality...

Firn

12-04-2010, 05:46 PM

Sad to say but for the broader US, Afghanistan is not much more than a side show and the resource commitment -- about $ 220B will be spent this fiscal year by all US government agencies in or more or less directly related to Afghanistan -- that's only about 6% of the Federal budget and less than 1.5% of GDP. It involves about 100K people, less than a third of a tenth of a percent of the US population. Resources of all types are based on numbers. Always. That's reality...

Very wise words which apply to an even greater degree to the European countries involved. This can be very bitter for the soldiers fighting in that far, far away land, but it is equally sad and fortunate (no big wars around) reality that Afghanistan is just a small side show.

Fuchs

12-04-2010, 05:47 PM

The Steyr AUG was innovative and a daring design plus it's much younger than AR-15 and had remarkable commercial success without a huge foreign military sales program or huge civilian market in its back.

Some of the - if not THE - best revolvers are not Colts, but good old French Manurhin MR 73.

Some developers went for extreme lightweight design, such as the Carbon AR-15 designs.

Some companies custom-designed rifles for cartridges instead of using oversized standard breeches. The result is often a superior quality rifle. Kimber arms, for example.

HK developed the MP5 and revolutionised the concept of the submachinegun by turning it into an accurate weapon that was globally well-received by police institutions.

ST Kinetics dared to develop (with Sullivan) a light machinegun that uses soft recoil (bolt moving forward in the moment of shot, which helps to mitigate felt recoil) for unparalleled controllability.

So much about quality and innovation leaders.

Colt is not necessarily a bad company, but it has no claim to being a top notch company, and I honestly do not understand why this remark provoked any reaction at all.
Old company, well-known brand, uses a somewhat proven yet old design, huge military home market, huge subsidized foreign military sales opportunities, huge civilian home market - you would need to be an extremely crappy company to fare worse than Colt did under such conditions.

Colt is mediocre, not top.

---------------------------------------------

Before we continue this discussion, let's recall that there's no burden of proof for the one who claims absence of a thing (such as Colt's excellence).
The burden of proof is always with the one who asserts the existence. It is always impossible to provide evidence for non-existence, yet simple to offer evidence for existence of something that actually exists.
Americans got this already spectacularly wrong with Saddam's WMDs, and I begin to believe that getting this logic thing wrong is somehow a systemic cultural problem.

We can continue discussing Colt's quality as a company, but from now on I will only discuss this in response to an attempt of bringing evidence for it being a top notch arms manufacturer.

JMA

12-04-2010, 07:09 PM

Most will agree. Only professional quibblers get their shorts in a wad over things that do not effect them. Really dedicated ones even get wrapped around the axle over things that they cannot effect...

You mean that US soldiers being issued with substandard personal weapons through a bureaucratic (and quite possibly corrupt) process is something that can't be changed or rectified?

This matter does not reflect well upon members of the US military who should be ashamed of their timidity in the face of this challenge.

The US Army and Marines and their direct supporters from the other services field about 300K Riflemen to whom that Rifle is indeed the most important thing in the world. When they're in combat -- the rest of the time, it's not terribly important to them. Even when combat is ongoing, that weapon isn't terribly important to the vast majority of the other 306,700,000 Americans. Whether it should be or not isn't an issue, it is not.

I watched your USMC Gen Amos (on TV) make his case to protect his Corps from openly gay marines while the USMC is so heavily committed in operations in Afghanistan. It seems that having gays in the Marine Corps is a bigger problem than having a crappy personal weapon. Talk about screwed up priorities...

You can get exercised over your beliefs even if they are generally inaccurate but the fact remains that less than One Tenth of One Percent of the US population is intimately involved with the perceived problems with our basic issue weapon. Expand that to all like thee and me who are concerned and you still have less than one percent of Americans and others who are or might be perturbed. Thus the amount of energy, funds and concern expended is going to be small. It's not proportional, due to the added emphasis on the combat factor it gets precedence over many things but there are other larger concerns for the nation as a whole. The bottom line is that 120mm has it right, the weapon is adequate; not great but adequate.

That sounds like a poor excuse for inaction on your behalf.

Is it, or is it not, the responsibility of a country and an army to at the very least provide their soldiers with a decent personal weapon?

It all gets to sound like Little Big Horn again where that cavalry were issued a crappy weapon while the injuns could buy/trade a far better weapon from traders.

Now compare the M4 with your average AK-47. For $1,000 a soldier can give him the edge over the AK. And you are OK with that?

Your experience in an existential war colors your thinking and logically so. We've done those and our thinking in them was vastly different than it is in the smaller wars that we engage in from time to time. Sad to say but for the broader US, Afghanistan is not much more than a side show and the resource commitment -- about $ 220B will be spent this fiscal year by all US government agencies in or more or less directly related to Afghanistan -- that's only about 6% of the Federal budget and less than 1.5% of GDP. It involves about 100K people, less than a third of a tenth of a percent of the US population. Resources of all types are based on numbers. Always. That's reality...

I am less concerned about what the population of civilians think than what the military thinks... and it appears that the military is not thinking.

SethB

12-04-2010, 07:28 PM

Colt lobbied the procurement bureaucracy to change a tiny bit in the M4 (I think it was a piece of plastic or metal in the lower) to improve the weapon at no additional cost - they lobbied for years and the procurement bureaucracy insisted on the old spec and design.

That issue could well be the extractor spring buffer. The M4 ought to have a stronger buffer than it originally came with. Colt's wanted to change that part but the metrics (cue Ken) weren't right. One of the selling points of the M4 was its similarity to the M16A2. Changing small parts would decrease the percentage of commonality, thereby changing the metric.

So it wasn't done for a long time.

Current M4s are much improved over those issued even ten years ago, although the government held design is still about 15 years behind the times.

A modern, purpose built fighting rifle might have 10% parts commonality with the rifle that Ken tested in the early 1960s. But even that might be a stretch.

Stupendous Man

12-04-2010, 07:30 PM

I must say I am very much surprised by the accuracy requirements for the M4; in fact this represents a regression behind WW2 standards of accuracy for issue rifles. On top of my head, a Wehrmacht K98 had to group 5 rounds into 7 cms at 100 meters from the machine to be deemed acceptable for service.
I find it all the moreso flabbergasting given the AR15 platforms' potential for precision. Even a lower quality commercial AR (DPMS, Sabre Defence etc.) will usually shoot 2 MOA or better without match-grade ammo. In fact, in all my years of shooting, I don't recall ever coming across one that did not, at least after some tweaking.

Your experience in an existential war colors your thinking and logically so.
Mhhh. It appears to me there are dimensions to this. While what you seem to be getting at is that public interest in the matter would rise during an existential conflagration and thus lead to a tightening of production standards, such a conflict might actually quickly produce the opposite effect as it eventually did ie. in Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union.

SethB

12-04-2010, 07:34 PM

Ken White

12-04-2010, 09:08 PM

You mean that US soldiers being issued with substandard personal weapons through a bureaucratic (and quite possibly corrupt) process is something that can't be changed or rectified?It's not substandard, just not as good as it could be -- few things are.

This matter does not reflect well upon members of the US military who should be ashamed of their timidity in the face of this challenge.Bravely spoken. Your courage in taking on the bureaucracy over the internet is noted.
I watched your USMC Gen Amos... It seems that having gays in the Marine Corps is a bigger problem than having a crappy personal weapon. Talk about screwed up priorities...The weapon is not crappy, it's good enough. As for screwed up priorities, that's democracy and politicians at work. Your distaste is noted, you inability to understand the fact that several people have told you the weapons is not the significant problem you'd like it to be is also noted, as is your penchant for diverting, devious and essentially pointless innuendo. :rolleyes:
That sounds like a poor excuse for inaction on your behalf.Inaction implies that there is a windmill worth tilting at out there -- in this case there is none. Anyway, I'm retired - I'm supposed to be inactive. Get paid for it, in fact... :D
Is it, or is it not, the responsibility of a country and an army to at the very least provide their soldiers with a decent personal weapon?It is and US Forces have a better than decent weapon -- it just isn't a great weapon, any more the SLR / FAL was great. All weapons have good and bad points. The M4's failings are minor.
It all gets to sound like Little Big Horn again where that cavalry were issued a crappy weapon while the injuns could buy/trade a far better weapon from traders.Don't know, wasn't there. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Montana, they say it's nice in the summer.
Now compare the M4 with your average AK-47. For $1,000 a soldier can give him the edge over the AK. And you are OK with that?He's already got that edge most places, most of the time -- the AK is a better brush buster and requires less maintenance but those are the only real advantages. So yeah, I'm okay with it.
I am less concerned about what the population of civilians think than what the military thinks... and it appears that the military is not thinking.Well, you know what they say about you Ossifers...:)

You may not be concerned about what civilians think but then in this matter you don't have any responsibility for anything except poorly informed or purposely obtuse and generally idle carping and you are not a Politician -- they care very much about what the civilians think. Surprisingly, US Politicians are more concerned with the mass of US voters than they are about the million or so Troops. Weird but there it is...

Ken White

12-04-2010, 09:22 PM

Plus the cartridge has an effect on accuracy. The 5.56 has some problems in that regard due to a light, fast bullet.
Mhhh. It appears to me there are dimensions to this. While what you seem to be getting at is that public interest in the matter would rise during an existential conflagration and thus lead to a tightening of production standards, such a conflict might actually quickly produce the opposite effect as it eventually did ie. in Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union.True and possible, however, our WW II experience was the reverse of that. Though what I was getting at is not the public but the politicians, they get more serious and thoughtful. I also meant not the production aspect but the specification issue. In such cases, we tend to stop fooling around and get at least semi-serious and want results.

We'd rather not toughen up and get real -- but we can if we must. Only if we must will we do that... :o

JMA

12-04-2010, 09:36 PM

M4s are usually quite accurate.

Usually.

If the weapon meets the criteria laid out in contract documents and the -10 and -20 manuals, then there is no reason to "fix" it. It isn't broken.

The acceptance criteria for the M14 was even worse. 5.6 MOA.

The question is whether the accuracy criteria are acceptable or not and if not why has so little been said and done about it?

Should the US get into a war that requires a near full mobilisation the stock answer to pumping out low grade M4s from the factories will be "give a break, mate, don't you know we are at war?" Its a question of standards. Once you let the fundamentals slip it spreads like a cancer to all aspects.

Pete

12-04-2010, 11:32 PM

You can get exercised over your beliefs even if they are generally inaccurate but the fact remains that less than One Tenth of One Percent of the US population is intimately involved with the perceived problems with our basic issue weapon.
On U.S. gun forums there is a lot of disatisfaction with the 5.56mm round, as well as 9mm for pistols. Although a bit of it is sentimentality about World War II, a lot of shooters genuinely believe that a cartridge that can't legally be used for deer hunting in the vast majority of states of the U.S. should not be the caliber of our main service weapon. I don't have any idea what percentage of public opinion those shooters in the U.S. would be of overall public opinion at large.

120mm

12-05-2010, 04:06 AM

The Steyr AUG was innovative and a daring design plus it's much younger than AR-15 and had remarkable commercial success without a huge foreign military sales program or huge civilian market in its back.

Innovative - yes. Daring - yes. But in the end, it only worked out as a military weapon for Australia. The AUG did not age well, and has insurmountable ergo problems. The AR, on the other hand, continues to advance. Bullpups, in general have ergo issues. The AUG is still the pick of the litter, but still doesn't offer any real advantage over the M4.

I really liked my experience shooting the Steyr in the late '80s. It was cool and different, but I didn't know jack about how to fight with a carbine then, either.

Some of the - if not THE - best revolvers are not Colts, but good old French Manurhin MR 73.

Some developers went for extreme lightweight design, such as the Carbon AR-15 designs.

ALL of which were abject failures. ALL OF THEM....

Some companies custom-designed rifles for cartridges instead of using oversized standard breeches. The result is often a superior quality rifle. Kimber arms, for example.

I'm curious as to what your point is, here.

HK developed the MP5 and revolutionised the concept of the submachinegun by turning it into an accurate weapon that was globally well-received by police institutions.

This is severe irony. A cheap, pressed together submachinegun, that has been nearly universally replaced by police and LEO agencies worldwide, by the 11.5" COLT M4 carbine. Thank you for bringing up a point which helps defeat your own argument.

ST Kinetics dared to develop (with Sullivan) a light machinegun that uses soft recoil (bolt moving forward in the moment of shot, which helps to mitigate felt recoil) for unparalleled controllability.

Great. Other than for playing Call Of Duty, let me know how that "concept" works out.

So much about quality and innovation leaders.

Colt is not necessarily a bad company, but it has no claim to being a top notch company, and I honestly do not understand why this remark provoked any reaction at all.
Old company, well-known brand, uses a somewhat proven yet old design, huge military home market, huge subsidized foreign military sales opportunities, huge civilian home market - you would need to be an extremely crappy company to fare worse than Colt did under such conditions.

Colt is mediocre, not top.

---------------------------------------------

Before we continue this discussion, let's recall that there's no burden of proof for the one who claims absence of a thing (such as Colt's excellence).
The burden of proof is always with the one who asserts the existence. It is always impossible to provide evidence for non-existence, yet simple to offer evidence for existence of something that actually exists.
Americans got this already spectacularly wrong with Saddam's WMDs, and I begin to believe that getting this logic thing wrong is somehow a systemic cultural problem.

We can continue discussing Colt's quality as a company, but from now on I will only discuss this in response to an attempt of bringing evidence for it being a top notch arms manufacturer.

Frankly, you bring nothing specific to the argument. You say that you don't need to bring burden of proof , but that is crap. You attack without having anything behind your attack. This is typical of the great majority of anti-M4 propaganda out there, btw.

I am going to venture out and suggest that you lack a basic foundation from which to discuss firearms. It sounds like you've read a bunch on the internet but have very little practical experience.

Anyone can attack a concept or ediface. Your "attacks" are rather insubstantial. At least Ken brings some practical experience to the game. I know there is better data out there that could be critical to Colt.

Fuchs

12-05-2010, 09:56 AM

I don't discuss the M4. Your objection was about the Colt remark. You assert that Colt is top notch, above ordinary. Your burden of proof.

Besides; the MP5 was partially replaced in the U.S. which has a unique police weapon culture (a huge emphasis on shotguns and AR-15, while most European countries rather emphasize SMGs), but it was certainly not replaced worldwide by the M4. You've put up plainly wrong information there.
I met Bobbie with G36s in Farnborough, Gendarmerie with FAMAS in Paris, Carabinieri with an Italian SMGs in Italy - haven't seen a M4 in European police service yet, but it's a fact that the MP5 had huge commercial success with LE in non-German-speaking European countries.

We probably underestimated Colt's marketing.

SethB

12-05-2010, 04:15 PM

Colt's doesn't really advertise. They don't have to. The products speak for themselves.

Their quality remains superior to most of their competitors, and they have never slipped into the fads that periodically seize the industry.

Other manufacturers can't boast 50 years of success with one rifle line.

Consider Lewis Machine and Tool. They make the 7.62 DMR that Britain is buying.

Several years ago they ran short of screws that connect the gas key to the bolt carrier. Rather than wait for a new shipment or make them in house, they bought substandandard screws that sheared, leaving some operators with single shot rifles.

Of course, several of these operators were in combat at the time. It took them awhile to recover from that.

Colt's has been held to the TDP since the 1960s. They can't really cut corners. While they are hardly innovative, there is something to be said for making something to a standard.

As for the MP5, it was a good weapon for what it was, and when it was. It requires more maintenance than just about everything. People like to say that HK builds weapons like a Swiss watch, but the fact of the matter is that my watch requires almost no maintenance, while the roller delayed system requires near constant armorer support.

Combine that with an inferior cartridge and there is no reason to use an MP5 now that we have access to better.

Even the Europeans who would normally use the MP5 are switching. G36Ks, MP7s, P90s, SIG 553s, and the like abound.

For an American customer, there is no need to get something other than an M4 pattern rifle.

120mm

12-06-2010, 05:10 AM

I don't discuss the M4. Your objection was about the Colt remark. You assert that Colt is top notch, above ordinary. Your burden of proof.

Where did I specifically make this assertion?

Besides; the MP5 was partially replaced in the U.S. which has a unique police weapon culture (a huge emphasis on shotguns and AR-15, while most European countries rather emphasize SMGs), but it was certainly not replaced worldwide by the M4. You've put up plainly wrong information there.
I met Bobbie with G36s in Farnborough, Gendarmerie with FAMAS in Paris, Carabinieri with an Italian SMGs in Italy - haven't seen a M4 in European police service yet, but it's a fact that the MP5 had huge commercial success with LE in non-German-speaking European countries.

We probably underestimated Colt's marketing.

Since HK no longer supports the MP5, the MP5 is a dead chestnut. G36 is an awful gun. FAMAS is an antique, with very little modern options for improvement, and the Carabinieri spend 10x as much time working on their hairstyle than weapons selection. If you look at various special units that actually shoot a lot, you'll see ARs in use, or the excellent AR copy made by HK.

BTW, you'll note that HK's most successful long-guns are merely copies of other guns.

Because there IS an American shooting culture, there is a certain "trial by fire" that LE/mil weapons go through. Thus, large scale stupidity like the PDW and submachinegun do not persist.

There is a reason that conservatism in weapons development is so persistent. Most so-called "innovations" fail miserably.

SethB

12-06-2010, 11:33 AM

82redleg

12-06-2010, 01:27 PM

Okay... I'll bite. How does Colt fail, as a top-notch arms company? I'm not a Colt defender by any means, but am interested in what objective data is out there to support this.

Where did I specifically make this assertion?

120mm,

I'm pretty sure he's talking about post 379, quoted above.

Fuchs

12-06-2010, 02:00 PM

That one in combination with argueing against my responses.

JMA

12-06-2010, 04:45 PM

Bravely spoken. Your courage in taking on the bureaucracy over the internet is noted.

That's about the limit of my options at the moment. Make a suggestion. I'll probably be game.

You may not be concerned about what civilians think but then in this matter you don't have any responsibility for anything except poorly informed or purposely obtuse and generally idle carping and you are not a Politician -- they care very much about what the civilians think. Surprisingly, US Politicians are more concerned with the mass of US voters than they are about the million or so Troops. Weird but there it is...

You have a point but that's not the point.

Do you really think any US politician will campaign openly and publicly on the basis of wanting to send US soldiers off to war a substandard personal weapon and other kit to save money or to give a sweetheart deal to a local manufacturer?

Do you really think that the vast majority of US citizens would want US soldiers to be sent into battle with substandard weapons and kit?

This issue is not on the radar because the senior officers seem to care more about their pensions than this particular issue. Now that tells you something.

120mm

12-06-2010, 06:14 PM

Colt isn't exactly a top-notch arms company, but they're certainly better than the bureaucracy.

Okay; you want to play games, support your above statement. Better than you have so far.

I don't discuss the M4. Your objection was about the Colt remark. You assert that Colt is top notch, above ordinary. Your burden of proof.

See the top post. YOU asserted that Colt was NOT top notch. I would be surprised if you could actually come up with a valid criticism of Colt. BTW, I know I could, but am tired of playing games with you and will not give you anything. Earn the right to say things like that or go home.

And, btw, your pseudo-intellectual "you cannot prove a negative" is weak sauce. The fact is, you simply are not qualified to honestly make the criticism that Colt is mediocre (there, I fixed it for you... better?)

That one in combination with argueing against my responses.

Actually, I utterly destroyed your responses. Find better responses next time, maybe.

120mm

12-06-2010, 06:24 PM

I will offer one qualification to what 120MM said.

American shooting culture, being based largely on hunting anyway, would never inspire the Accuracy International design.

The AI represents one of the plainest rifles extant. It shares more in common with a tractor than a hunting rifle.

Which is of course one of it's greatest strengths.

I have to slightly disagree. Within the last 30 years or so, the "gun games" have impacted weapons design more than hunting.

And within the last 15 years or so, "combat shooting gun games" have dominated US military weapons designs dramatically.

That is why the so-called "Advanced European designs" suffered so awfully to more modular, ergo and frankly fightable US designs like the M4, imo.

The modern weapon sight is a game changer, for instance. For awhile, it appeared as if the US military would eschew sights, when some of the now awful optical sights were coming standard on Euro pieces.

I can easily summarize Euro military small arms for the last 15 years by two statements:

1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.

2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.

In comparison to the above two points, American small arms development has been top-notch. And that includes Colt's role in said development.

Fuchs

12-06-2010, 06:55 PM

William F. Owen

12-06-2010, 07:06 PM

1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.

Examples?

2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.
Well that's easy to explain. It's the NATO CRISAT test that creates that problem, and the failure of folks to read the specification correctly. More over the amount of weapons and calibres this has produced is minute. Two by my count.

Fuchs

12-06-2010, 07:59 PM

Examples?

Well that's easy to explain. It's the NATO CRISAT test that creates that problem, and the failure of folks to read the specification correctly. More over the amount of weapons and calibres this has produced is minute. Two by my count.

A few more, but only two were produced in quantity.

He focuses way too much on the PDW category.

JMA

12-06-2010, 09:35 PM

To call a company "mediocre" or "not top-notch" is no criticism. Assuming non-mediocrity without evidence is prejudice.

I'll leave it at that, for every reader can form his/her own opinion based on what was already written. I'm sure that non-U.S. readers will on average have a very different impression than U.S. readers.

I understand what the story is here and that is that the US would never give the contract to supply personal weapons for the whole military to a foreign manufacturer.

It has to be a US company... if for none other than emotional reasons.

The procurement policy is incompetent and probably as corrupt (as anything out of Afghanistan) but hey... that's the way we do it in the US, right?

Think introduction of the AR15/M-16 and the horror of that!

The soldiers deserve better.

Fuchs

12-06-2010, 09:44 PM

Actually, JMA, you should google which companies won U.S. contracts for 9mm pistols, 5.56mm light machine guns, 7.62mm medium machine guns, 25mm grenade weapons, designated marksman rifles and the new USSOCOM assault rifles.

All that foreign small arms suppliers need to do to win against U.S. bidders is to set up a subsidiary in the U.S..They do not only win tenders - they appear to win most tenders that are not merely about producing yet another batch AR-15s.

Stupendous Man

12-06-2010, 09:50 PM

[...]
I cannot really follow you here. First off, what is "Euro" weapons design supposed to be?
When you critizise the "European" propensity to employ "awful" optics early on, what kind of gun are you referring to? The G36 and its HKV? The AUG? The SUSAT? Each of those will provide a marksman with a very tangible advantage over the use of irons.
I will concede that the HKV is a miserable piece of equipment, and that there was much better gear already available, but in the mid-90ties, it still represented a quantum leap over any irons; you further need to understand that the G36+HKV was a child of the "peace dividend" era where low cost was the one overriding consideration; and that is a kind of problem the American military never had to face to the same extent after the beginning of the Korean war.

1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.

2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.
1. Eh? Examples? The G36 ie. has a very poor stock construction (non adjustable, too long for use with body armour) which I have always critisized, but so the has the standard AR.
2. Again, examples? The PDWs employ a niche - they are not meant to be general issue weapons, they are supposed to replace pistols. And an MP7 for example offers far larger utility than any handgun at negligibly larger bulk and weight.

JMA

12-06-2010, 09:52 PM

Fuchs

12-06-2010, 10:00 PM

What's impersonal about the M9 pistol?

Did you really narrow it down to the M1 Garand - M14 - AR-15 line?

Well, the U.S. government gave a contract to HK for the XM8 - just not a production contract. The contract was nevertheless substantial enough that it was together with OICW remains into the XM25 contract (HK already had legal claims from the earlier contracts, so the programs were replaced and HK simply got its turnover from a new project).

Besides; no country with a reputable assault rifle producing company buys less indigenous assault rifles for its whole armed services than license-productions.
Finland, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Brazil, India, Austria, Germany ... there's always a national component at least.

Ken White

12-06-2010, 11:08 PM

I did mention "personal weapons" didn't I? That's the big one, the must have one for a US company.are personal weapons. The first is a Beretta, the second a FNH product. The M16 and M4 were also produced by FNH who replaced Colt as sole source from 1988 until 1993 and has, along with Colt had additional contracts since then. Several other manufacturers also had or have production contracts, including Sabre Defence, a British Company with a plant in Nashville.

The design home of the weapon is not location sensitive nor is license production a problem. By law, actual manufacture of bulk item defense materiel must be in the US to support and maintain a domestic production base.

JMA

12-07-2010, 05:23 AM

The design home of the weapon is not location sensitive nor is license production a problem. By law, actual manufacture of bulk item defense materiel must be in the US to support and maintain a domestic production base.

Exactly.

Ken White

12-07-2010, 04:46 PM

I understand what the story is here and that is that the US would never give the contract to supply personal weapons for the whole military to a foreign manufacturer.

It has to be a US company... if for none other than emotional reasons.Neither FNH or Sabre are US companies. They do have plants in the US but they are still foreign manufacturers, so that statement by you is incorrect.

The rationale for US production is not emotional but practical.

The procurement policy is incompetent and probably as corrupt (as anything out of Afghanistan) but hey... that's the way we do it in the US, right?

Think introduction of the AR15/M-16 and the horror of that!You're shooting at the wrong target.

Yet again. :wry:

The culprits are the Congress, not the procurement guys who generally aren't corrupt and much of whose seeming incompetence is caused by the plethora of laws and excessively bureaucratic regulations that govern procurement -- most but not all designed to keep the system honest and avoid the corruption (other than that of Congress which is apparently acceptable...:mad: ).
The soldiers deserve better.Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...

Fuchs

12-07-2010, 07:08 PM

The rationale for US production is not emotional but practical.

A state which buys a 100 € tool from a domestic manufacturer can expect about 40-60 € returns in taxes. This halves the price effectively in comparison to an import.
Subsidiaries and component imports complicate the topic, of course..

Many small countries compensate for their inability to buy everything at home by agreeing on offset purchases. They buy a tool for 100 € in another country, but that country pledges to buy tools for typically 80-180 € in return.

Large weapons net exporter countries often reject such deal conditions - and get away with it because of oligopoly market structures (there are only so many fighter jet and SSK designs on the world market...). The U.S. is such an example.

JMA

12-11-2010, 06:50 PM

You're shooting at the wrong target.

Yet again. :wry:

The culprits are the Congress, not the procurement guys who generally aren't corrupt and much of whose seeming incompetence is caused by the plethora of laws and excessively bureaucratic regulations that govern procurement -- most but not all designed to keep the system honest and avoid the corruption (other than that of Congress which is apparently acceptable...:mad: ).Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...

Always seems to be someone else to blame I notice.

But do tell me what you think of a senior officers who takes up an appointment in procurement knowing full well that the organisation will not serve the best interests of the US fighting soldier... in fact may even be detrimental to his ability to survive a conflict?

Can these accessories before and after the fact ever be forgiven or their conduct condoned in any shape or form?

Ken White

12-11-2010, 11:50 PM

Always seems to be someone else to blame I notice.It's not that others always find someone else to blame, rather it is that you always blame the wrong actions or people because you don't know any better. ;)
But do tell me what you think of a senior officers who takes up an appointment in procurement knowing full well that the organisation will not serve the best interests of the US fighting soldier... in fact may even be detrimental to his ability to survive a conflict?Another superficial gem from you. :rolleyes:

Depends on his motive. If he's doing it for the potential of reward, he's criminally wrong. If he's taking a lousy job -- one that I certainly would not want even if the Congress did not interfere so much -- in order to do the best he can and try to ameliorate damage, then I say good for him. Which is he? Or is he someone in between who was not asked if he wanted it but told to do it and is spending his time in that purgatory just waiting to get back to a unit. We do not have solid one job career tracks, people are rotated in and out of various jobs in the foolish attempt to create what the Personnel community calls a 'generalist.' We are large enough that if someone refuses a job or an order, he just gets fired and someone else is moved in; sooner or later, the system finds someone who will comply and not be a rabble rouser. Not a good system but no one has come up with a fix, though many have tried and are trying.
Can these accessories before and after the fact ever be forgiven or their conduct condoned in any shape or form?You wrongly condemn through either ignorance or malice. You accuse people of wrongdoing with absolutely no knowledge of who does what to who or how our procurement system works. It really does a fair job with most things. Its major flaw is simply overbureaucratization induced by Congress and their quest for Jobs for voters. Really, it's surprising that it works as well as it does.

JMA

12-18-2010, 04:24 PM

It's not that others always find someone else to blame, rather it is that you always blame the wrong actions or people because you don't know any better. ;)Another superficial gem from you. :rolleyes:

The chain of incompetence extends beyond the politicians and into the military (whether you like it or not).

Depends on his motive. If he's doing it for the potential of reward, he's criminally wrong. If he's taking a lousy job -- one that I certainly would not want even if the Congress did not interfere so much -- in order to do the best he can and try to ameliorate damage, then I say good for him. Which is he? Or is he someone in between who was not asked if he wanted it but told to do it and is spending his time in that purgatory just waiting to get back to a unit. We do not have solid one job career tracks, people are rotated in and out of various jobs in the foolish attempt to create what the Personnel community calls a 'generalist.' We are large enough that if someone refuses a job or an order, he just gets fired and someone else is moved in; sooner or later, the system finds someone who will comply and not be a rabble rouser. Not a good system but no one has come up with a fix, though many have tried and are trying.You wrongly condemn through either ignorance or malice. You accuse people of wrongdoing with absolutely no knowledge of who does what to who or how our procurement system works. It really does a fair job with most things. Its major flaw is simply overbureaucratization induced by Congress and their quest for Jobs for voters. Really, it's surprising that it works as well as it does.

No, no Ken. Just look at the adoption of 5.56mm, just look at the adoption of the AR-15 with the massive problems and now look at the M4 fiasco.

As much as you would wish to lay all the blame on the politicians there is a significant complicit involvement by serving officers in the process. As much as they would plead that they are doing the best they can they remain party to a series of acts (way beyond what I have mentioned) for which they have no excuse and should not be allowed to have any excuse.

William F. Owen

12-19-2010, 07:23 AM

No, no Ken. Just look at the adoption of 5.56mm, just look at the adoption of the AR-15 with the massive problems and now look at the M4 fiasco.

What M4 fiasco? Almost all NATO SF use the M4/C8/HK416, including UK, and Australian SF. The IDF uses it without complaint and will shortly adopt a replacement with near identical external ballistics. ( a 5.56mm weapon with a >330mm barrel). OK, the Tavor X95 is a lot more reliable, but the bullet will be doing the same thing.

Backwards Observer

12-19-2010, 08:33 AM

OK, the Tavor X95

The Tavor's wikipedia entry states that it was named after Mount Tavor, a location rich with history. Looks like a good place from which to add dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl. Perhaps this is an inappropriate observation, my apologies.

Mount Tabor - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tabor)

Artillery Quotes (http://www.military-quotes.com/artillery%20quotes.htm)

William F. Owen

12-19-2010, 02:45 PM

The Tavor's wikipedia entry states that it was named after Mount Tavor, a location rich with history. Looks like a good place from which to add dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl. Perhaps this is an inappropriate observation, my apologies.
Not at all. One of my favourite parts of the country. One hell of climb, and the view is worth it..... maybe.... let me catch my breath..... :o

JMA

12-19-2010, 11:32 PM

What M4 fiasco? Almost all NATO SF use the M4/C8/HK416, including UK, and Australian SF. The IDF uses it without complaint and will shortly adopt a replacement with near identical external ballistics. ( a 5.56mm weapon with a >330mm barrel). OK, the Tavor X95 is a lot more reliable, but the bullet will be doing the same thing.

No we are talking about the M4 alone. and to the C8/HK416 you can add the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62.

Comparatively the M4 is the poorest of the breed. They knew that before they selected it. That is why it is a fiasco.

PS: and discussing this with a good friend from way back (who has carried and fought with a variety of weapons) he commented that I had no frame of reference as the FN was the only weapon I really knew. My response was that I did not need a lighter weapon nor lighter ammo and was quite happy with the stopping power of the7.62x51mm so my question remains why the change?

Also I believe that the weight problem the infantry is faced with is not and was not caused by his weapon it was always the other crap that he carried. So they go and exchange a great calibre and great weapons for peashooters and BB rounds. The decision making process around this weapon and calibre selection was not that of sane people. The first effort should be to bring the weight of the body armour down... not that of weapons and ammo.

Fuchs

12-19-2010, 11:57 PM

The M4 was selected before SCAR-L and HK416 existed iirc.

------------------

The Russians are apparently not satisfied with their light machine guns.

Their approach is interesting: They took their good medium machinegun PKM, modified it with a fixed barrel and issued it to infantry squads (with the usual budget restraints). Different sources claim that the barrel can either sustain 500 rds in uninterrupted full auto or 600.

The Pecheneg weights 8.7kg on bipod, 12.7 kg on tripod. The PKM was already much lighter than MG3 and MAG.
The only real weight-saving between PKM and Pecheneg appears to be the lack of a spare barrel (that should account for about 1.7 kg).

JMA

12-20-2010, 12:15 AM

Fuchs

12-20-2010, 01:04 AM

The PK/PKM/Pecheneg had that calibre all along.

The Russians had several machine guns in WW2, some of them badly outdated or suboptimal. They were exposed to MG34 and MG42 and apparently impressed by the universal machine gun concept. Thus the PK - it was their MG3/MAG/M60 counterpart (the Czechoslovakians also had a great and very interesting universal machine gun).

The Russians kept nevertheless the idea of a light machine gun alive with the RPD and later (for commonality) the RPK series. This approach seems to have been unsatisfactory, in part because of the weak cartridge (especially with 5.45x39 - 7.62x39 is more popular with many Russians afaik).

Ken White

12-20-2010, 05:27 AM

That's about the limit of my options at the moment. Make a suggestion. I'll probably be game.Come up with a viable solution to the well documented POLITICAL problem in US military procurement. I've come up with one, vote all the B@$terds out but it suffers from lack of adherents -- though that is improving if the last election is a harbinger. We'll see what happens with the next. Congress is capable of adequately instead of selectively supporting the Armed Forces, so far they've only been pretty much forced to do it in existential wars...
You have a point but that's not the point.Unfortunately it is THE point.:(

Do you really think any US politician will campaign openly and publicly on the basis of wanting to send US soldiers off to war a substandard personal weapon and other kit to save money or to give a sweetheart deal to a local manufacturer?Of course not. What a silly question. He will lie and dissemble to his voters and the armed forces and he will insure his efforts are well concealed in the arcane and opaque US Federal Budgeting system. It is no accident that numerous Commission's recommendations that the US Government fully adopt the GAAP (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles) is deliberately and forcefully rejected by Congress though they are slowly being forced into a corner on the subject.
Do you really think that the vast majority of US citizens would want US soldiers to be sent into battle with substandard weapons and kit?Not at all. However, they are captive to an ill informed and rather militarily ignorant media and mailed or otherwise published announcements by their politicians --so few understand what really transpires. More do every day and many things are getting fixed but it's a long slow effort and is being fought every step of the way. A Century's worth of US Congresses have fought to insure that incumbents are very difficult to dislodge and that accurate information is obscured. That is being attacked -- has been for year but the volume is increasing.

This issue is not on the radar because the senior officers seem to care more about their pensions than this particular issue. Now that tells you something.It tells me that once again you do not understand all you know about what you're saying. The Canadians have a great tradition along that line -- Resigning in protest -- the British less so. The US has almost none and there good and bad reasons for that but the biggest deterrent is that the few time it has been done, the individual was effectively if dishonestly in some cases discredited and his replacements did what was wanted. Once again, you fall afoul of trying to judge the US by other western nations. doesn't work. ;)

The issue is on the Radar, however, it is only one of couple of thousand blips of about the same size and import to the nation as a whole -- it is a ar bigger blip for the Troops but they are only a very small slice of the population. Politicians can count and they count voters -- and count on ignorant voters -- and have constructed a system that aids in perpetuating that ignorance.:mad:

Ken White

12-20-2010, 05:50 AM

The chain of incompetence extends beyond the politicians and into the military (whether you like it or not).Of course it does. So does the chain of crimnal actors so extend (don't forget the, incompetence is not the only sin) -- however, in both cases, the military component is much smaller and much more constrained than is the political side.
No, no Ken. Just look at the adoption of 5.56mm, just look at the adoption of the AR-15 with the massive problems and now look at the M4 fiasco.I was present for the first item and was one of those that worked through that POLITICAL decision that the Army did not wholeheartedly support. :(

The AR-15 adoption problems were a case of military incompetence (and that of military hired civilian employees), period -- the Pols skate on that one. :mad:

The only M4 fiasco is the one you seem to have invented on these pages...:D
As much as you would wish to lay all the blame on the politicians there is a significant complicit involvement by serving officers in the process. As much as they would plead that they are doing the best they can they remain party to a series of acts (way beyond what I have mentioned) for which they have no excuse and should not be allowed to have any excuse.You're wrong on the first issue, there is certainly enough blame to go around -- however, you're treating it like the greatest scandal in town -- it is not, it's just one of many. That's not being blase, just realistic. If you think the same sorts of chicanery and incompetence do not happen in every nation in the world on issues as or even more important, you're living in a dream world.

Okay, they have no excuse -- now what? What do you recommend we do about it?

Ken White

12-20-2010, 06:26 AM

No we are talking about the M4 alone. and to the C8/HK416 you can add the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62.All of which have their problems, though they are different problems than those of the M4 (except for the C8 which has the same problems). You might also talk to some SCAR users...
Comparatively the M4 is the poorest of the breed. They knew that before they selected it. That is why it is a fiasco. Actually, Fuchs is correct, the adoption of the M4 precedes the manufacture of any of the others -- so you're wrong again and the only fiasco is the one you're trying to invent for some obscure reason... :D
PS: and discussing this with a good friend from way back (who has carried and fought with a variety of weapons) he commented that I had no frame of reference as the FN was the only weapon I really knew...You really should listen to good advice -- it, essentially, was don't shoot your mouth off unless you know what you're talking about.

It was adopted for all the reasons discussed ad nauseam earlier in this thread. :rolleyes:

Ken White

12-20-2010, 06:32 AM

There wasn't much wrong with the RPD. And why the new calibre 7.62x54mm for the PKM?boggles the mind. :wry:

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round. :rolleyes:

It is the rough equivalent of the 7.62X51used in the MAG 58 -- which is why the USSR adopted the PKM. New it was not, been around since 1891.

William F. Owen

12-20-2010, 07:16 AM

My response was that I did not need a lighter weapon nor lighter ammo and was quite happy with the stopping power of the7.62x51mm so my question remains why the change?
...because had you taken part in properly conducted comparative trials, it would have been shown that in certain areas you were more effective with a 5.56mm weapon.

I was in the British Army when we changed calibre and marksmanship scores went up across the board. Now that was not just a calibre issue. Ergonomics and optics played their part, but at <300m the SA-80/LSW equipped section could hit more targets and suppress for longer than an SLR/GPMG equipped section.

Now, if you alter the trials criteria, you will get differing results, but for what they tested, the results showed an improvement.

JMA

12-20-2010, 08:31 AM

...because had you taken part in properly conducted comparative trials, it would have been shown that in certain areas you were more effective with a 5.56mm weapon.

And those areas would be?

I was in the British Army when we changed calibre and marksmanship scores went up across the board. Now that was not just a calibre issue. Ergonomics and optics played their part, but at <300m the SA-80/LSW equipped section could hit more targets and suppress for longer than an SLR/GPMG equipped section.

These properly conducted comparative trials included range marksmanship achieved with the L1A1 SLR fitted with optics?

Now, if you alter the trials criteria, you will get differing results, but for what they tested, the results showed an improvement.

Yes, it appears that with carefully selected trials criteria the desired results were achieved.

JMA

12-20-2010, 08:35 AM

You really should listen to good advice -- it, essentially, was don't shoot your mouth off unless you know what you're talking about.

Good to see you back Ken. I missed your acerbic way with words.

Kiwigrunt

12-20-2010, 11:26 AM

Fuchs

12-20-2010, 11:58 AM

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round. :rolleyes:

Afaik neither bullet was designed to yaw and break or did the same. The calibre was the same, so the difference was largely about the kinetic energy still left after exiting the wound.
7.62x39 is generally considered to be a good cartridge - its primary shortcoming is the rather low MV and thus a high bullet drop at longer ranges than it was meant for in the AK.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness (or necessity) of machine gun suppressive fires beyond the effective range of the RPD.
The dispersion is unavoidably (well, unless you use a turret-mounted gun) awful, it's difficult to detect an assault rifle muzzle fire or its muzzle blast dust from beyond 300 m in daylight and every officer who thinks that his infantry should leapfrog over 350m in face of the opposition of an infantry squad and without a huge deal of obscuration should be fragged.
You could of course want a fire base farther away from the enemy fighting positions than the jump-off point for the assault element. In that case I'd ask why would you insist on keeping your base of fire distant enough to allow them the use of even artillery against it?

The range of the RPD looks thus only like a lethality problem and not so much like a tactical problem to me. Kills by machine guns at more than 300 m aren't terribly often even with a heavier machine gun, though. You can usually use scoped rifles, indirect fire support or simply keep your position unknown when you see suitable targets at such ranges.

William F. Owen

12-20-2010, 12:36 PM

And those areas would be?
Ease of training. Firing from the standing position. Weapons carriage. Total effects of weapons and ammunition, etc etc.

These properly conducted comparative trials included range marksmanship achieved with the L1A1 SLR fitted with optics?
The SUIT sight wasn't that good and was never on general issue.

Yes, it appears that with carefully selected trials criteria the desired results were achieved.
Well most soldiers seem unable to articulate what they actually want from a rifle, in terms of things that can be usefully measured.

Ken White

12-20-2010, 03:46 PM

7.62x39 is generally considered to be a good cartridge - its primary shortcoming is the rather low MV and thus a high bullet drop at longer ranges than it was meant for in the AK.True, it is a good cartridge, better than the 5.56 as a combat cartridge IMO but both suffer from a range shortfall for some situations and terrain.
I'm also somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness (or necessity) of machine gun suppressive fires beyond the effective range of the RPD.See the underlined element above... ;)
The dispersion is unavoidably (well, unless you use a turret-mounted gun) awful...It's only awful if you do not use it as the advantage it provides -- at longer ranges, the MMG becomes an area weapon with many benefits -- particularly in the defense. Plunging fire is particularly useful and relies on that dispersion for much of its effect.
it's difficult to detect an assault rifle muzzle fire or its muzzle blast dust from beyond 300 m in daylight and every officer who thinks that his infantry should leapfrog over 350m in face of the opposition of an infantry squad and without a huge deal of obscuration should be fragged.I'd go with trained properly or fired; fragging is a bit extreme :D . However, your point is valid.
You could of course want a fire base farther away from the enemy fighting positions than the jump-off point for the assault element. In that case I'd ask why would you insist on keeping your base of fire distant enough to allow them the use of even artillery against it?You may not have Artillery due to priority of fires or for other reasons. Same applies even to own mortars. No one weapon provides all the answers, properly allocating and synchronizing their use is what the senior people get paid to do and the good ones will make use of all their assets in accordance with the ol' METT-TC bit...

Redundancy is a combat imperative.
The range of the RPD looks thus only like a lethality problem and not so much like a tactical problem to me. Kills by machine guns at more than 300 m aren't terribly often even with a heavier machine gun, though. You can usually use scoped rifles, indirect fire support or simply keep your position unknown when you see suitable targets at such ranges.True in many, perhaps even most cases but the MG has it uses at extended ranges and, at shorter ranges, the increased lethality and shoot through (walls, etc.) capability is, umm, beneficial...:wry:

But I only used that acronym once and buried it in the middle of the post. :D

Ken White

12-20-2010, 03:59 PM

Good to see you back Ken. I missed your acerbic way with words.Regardless, that guy is indeed a good friend and you could well benefit by heeding his advice... ;)

All of which evades the larger point -- there is no M4 fiasco. :wry:

Entropy

12-20-2010, 04:09 PM

It's been kind of an interesting thread for someone who isn't at all a small arms expert. Here are what seem to be the takaways:

- There's no such thing as a perfect weapon/cartidge combo - any choice will have compromises.

- Small arms don't exist in a vacuum, therefore ideally the compromises resulting from a particular choice are mitigated elsewhere.

- Politics will always play a role in these decisions.

JMA

12-20-2010, 06:13 PM

Wonder how the SA army have been getting along with 5.56 for the last 20 or so years.;)

Or with the R4 and R5, which have been derived from the Israeli Galil. Strangely, the Israelis seem to prefer the M4 over the Galil.

Our SAS prefer the M4 over the Steyr.

I don't think the M4 is perfect, but a fiasco???

Maybe you should read this: The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/)

JMA

12-20-2010, 06:15 PM

JMA

12-20-2010, 06:22 PM

boggles the mind. :wry:

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round. :rolleyes:

Whats wrong with the RPD beyond range and stopping power issues?

It is the rough equivalent of the 7.62X51used in the MAG 58 -- which is why the USSR adopted the PKM. New it was not, been around since 1891.

OK new as in addition different calibre ammo carried at section level. Would have thought they would have learned from the stupidity of NATO mixing 5.56 and 7.62. Maybe this military procurement process is equally stupid across all nations... or equally corrupt?

Entropy

12-20-2010, 06:53 PM

soldiers die as a result of these decisions... and very few people seem to care.

Considering that debate about the 5.56, M-16 and M-4 have been around for a long time, the notion that "very few people seem to care" is a dubious one at best. Disagreement with you is not the same thing as not caring.

JMA

12-20-2010, 10:31 PM

Wonder how the SA army have been getting along with 5.56 for the last 20 or so years.;)

Or with the R4 and R5, which have been derived from the Israeli Galil. Strangely, the Israelis seem to prefer the M4 over the Galil.

I was there in the early 80s when the change from R1 (FN) to R4 (Galil) took place.

----------------------R1--------------R4
Length:................1.053m...............1.005m
Weight -empty:......4.31kg................4.3kg
Weight - loaded:.....5.06kg................5.1kg
........................ (20rd mag)..........(35rd mag)
source R1 (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=494&Itemid=283) source R4 (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=495&Itemid=362)

Then the Brit L85 Rifle weighs 4.98 kg (11.0 lb) (L85A1 with SUSAT sight and loaded 30 round magazine) - much the same - source L85 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80#L85_Rifle) -

Only the peashooter (M4) brings relief to the tired arms of the junk-food generation - 6.9 lb (3.1 kg) with 30 rounds - add some for all the poser stuff attached of course.

So (other than for the M4) it all comes down to the weight of ammo and the trade off between this reduction in weight and weakened ballistic performance.

The first batch of R4s were a disaster (apparently an engineering fault relating to metal characteristics). Improved later. As said its all about the ammo.

Does anyone out there really want to try and sell the ammo as a reason to have changed then?

JMA

12-20-2010, 10:36 PM

Considering that debate about the 5.56, M-16 and M-4 have been around for a long time, the notion that "very few people seem to care" is a dubious one at best. Disagreement with you is not the same thing as not caring.

The bad procurement decisions made by all armies are characterized by the passive acceptance of soldiers victims... and don't anyone dare rock the boat! Its all very sad.

Steve Blair

12-20-2010, 10:56 PM

The bad procurement decisions made by all armies are characterized by the passive acceptance of soldiers victims... and don't anyone dare rock the boat! Its all very sad.

By a "long time", Entropy means about 30+ years! 5.56 entered major US use in about 1965, and the weapon that reappeared as the M-4 came into service in about 1966-67. "Back in the day" the XM-177E2 (also known as the CAR-15) was favored by SOG teams, who weren't exactly fresh off the boat or basic training. They used full auto only when breaking contact, and preferred aimed fire when at all possible. Their basic load was also about 200-300 rounds. Wilf has some details on this stuff as well. That weapon was the direct ancestor of the M-4. And you can bet that 5.56 vs. 7.62 was hotly debated in the pages of American Rifleman and elsewhere during those days. I don't think anyone's about to change just because you suddenly "discovered" the debate and decided to make something of it.

I'd say you need to find a new donkey to ride...this one's about out of steam.

Rex Brynen

12-21-2010, 03:28 AM

I'd say you need to find a new donkey to ride...this one's about out of steam.

Frankly, I'm impressed that JMA manages to post so often if he's really riding one of these:

http://www.pacificcohistory.org/donkey.jpg

Entropy

12-21-2010, 04:11 AM

Rex, you are priceless! :D

William F. Owen

12-21-2010, 11:44 AM

"Back in the day" the XM-177E2 (also known as the CAR-15) was favored by SOG teams, who weren't exactly fresh off the boat or basic training. They used full auto only when breaking contact, and preferred aimed fire when at all possible. Their basic load was also about 200-300 rounds. Wilf has some details on this stuff as well.

In SOG (and I can only speak for the men I interviewed of which at least 14 or 15 were One-Zeros) the XM-177E2 (CAR-15) was usually prized over the AK-47 and M-14. I only know one-team that ran "all-AK", and that was because they were all dressed as NVA !!!??.
Every team also carried at least 1 x M-79.
Some teams carried some cut-down RPDs, but not as many as myth suggests.
Heavy Teams and Hatchet Force Platoons carried some M-60's and RPG-2/B-40s.

Basic Ammo load was usually 20 x 20 round mags with a 30 round mag on the weapon. IIRC, 30 rounders were very rare, well into 1970, and a lot of the old-timers didn't trust them. 4 FRAG and 2 x WP seems to have been standard.

Of note: Most of SOG guys found the CAR-15 reliable enough. A great many of them suggested that, by 1968/69 the real problem was poorly maintained and worn out magazines. Test firing all your mags was something they seemed to take seriously.

Steve Blair

12-21-2010, 02:18 PM

In SOG (and I can only speak for the men I interviewed of which at least 14 or 15 were One-Zeros) the XM-177E2 (CAR-15) was usually prized over the AK-47 and M-14. I only know one-team that ran "all-AK", and that was because they were all dressed as NVA !!!??.
Every team also carried at least 1 x M-79.
Some teams carried some cut-down RPDs, but not as many as myth suggests.
Heavy Teams and Hatchet Force Platoons carried some M-60's and RPG-2/B-40s.

Basic Ammo load was usually 20 x 20 round mags with a 30 round mag on the weapon. IIRC, 30 rounders were very rare, well into 1970, and a lot of the old-timers didn't trust them. 4 FRAG and 2 x WP seems to have been standard.

Of note: Most of SOG guys found the CAR-15 reliable enough. A great many of them suggested that, by 1968/69 the real problem was poorly maintained and worn out magazines. Test firing all your mags was something they seemed to take seriously.

That lines up with my research as well. The biggest knock against the magazines was that they had weak springs. Even the 20-round versions were often loaded with only 18 to prevent jams.

Ken White

12-21-2010, 04:50 PM

Whats wrong with the RPD beyond range and stopping power issues?Umm, nothing but those two shortfalls are killers and as you also said:
- soldiers die as a result of these decisions... and very few people seem to care.Yes -- and you don't care about the RPD's shortfalls? Shocking! :eek:

You also asked a very appropriate and sensible question:
...Maybe this military procurement process is equally stupid across all nations... or equally corrupt?Mostly stupid but a tiny bit of corruption is entailed on occasion. Read the quote from Major Chaz Bowser in the article you linked on the M4 (your Post 438). He correctly cites the inertia, procurement processes and politics as the culprit behind said stupidity. The senior officers you lambaste often are captives of the system in which they have to work.
The bad procurement decisions made by all armies are characterized by the passive acceptance of soldiers victims... and don't anyone dare rock the boat! Its all very sad.I don't think that's correct. Certainly it applies in some cases but in the majority flawed people -- we all are that -- do the best they can in the system in which they operate to get things as right as they can make them.

You have strong opinions, your prerogative -- but you often seem to forget they are only opinions and not the gospel. This is a good example:
... Would have thought they would have learned from the stupidity of NATO mixing 5.56 and 7.62You haven't had that mix in combat but to many of us who have, it is not the problem you seem to think (and you forgot the 40mm :wry:) -- just as the M4 which many of us have used quite successfully in combat isn't nearly as flawed as you seem to think. Or wish to think... :rolleyes:

JMA

12-21-2010, 07:59 PM

Our Fuchs posted an article on his blog on the issue, Modern small arms calibers (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/01/modern-small-arms-calibers.html#comment-form) is a good read and an intelligent contribution to the calibre debate:

Let's compare 7.62NATO battle rifles in contrast to 5.56NATO examples.

Pro 7.62NATO:
- better range
- better cover penetration
- better armor penetration
- better wound ballistics
Contra 7.62 NATO:
- heavier weapon
- fewer cartridges for same ammunition weight/volume
- a bit less controllable on full automatic fire

(designs with shoulder stock and barrel in one line like SCAR-H should be much more controllable than the older G3 and FAL designs). Such straight designs need a sight line high above the barrel - that's ideally suited to the modern rifle sights, but it was a drawback at the time of iron sights.

JMA

12-21-2010, 08:15 PM

A great many of them suggested that, by 1968/69 the real problem was poorly maintained and worn out magazines. Test firing all your mags was something they seemed to take seriously.

The Rhodesian ops rotation of 6 weeks on ops followed by 10 days R&R allowed for the magazines to be emptied over the R&R period to allow the springs to rest. (The lesson of not doing this and the subsequent stoppages was learned from the Border Control days of mid 60s)

How one deals with this over a six month or longer tour I can only guess but something a good company sergeant major and his platoon sergeants would be able sort out without missing a beat.

From the supply of magazines side there did not seem to be a problem as in the early 70's I remember carrying 50 rounds in clips in a bandoleer then we gave that nonsense up and just issued more magazines.

82redleg

12-21-2010, 08:24 PM

allowed for the magazines to be emptied over the R&R period to allow the springs to rest.

This may be a function of modern metallurgy and improved springs that weren't available 40 years ago, but I understand that the problem is leaving magazines compressed (loaded), but the cycling of the the spring (by loading/unloading).

Anecdotally, I found a couple of magazines in our office hootch that had been loaded by the unit that we replaced, and had sat for at least 11 months (we'd been there that long- I don't know how long they were left loaded before that). I took them to the range, and they all functioned flawlessly. These were recent manufacture, GI magazines with the green followers. Following the discussions on some gun boards, it seems that PMAGs are even better than GI, but I only have 3 PMAGs, and haven't run them yet.

jcustis

12-21-2010, 08:26 PM

The Rhodesian ops rotation of 6 weeks on ops followed by 10 days R&R allowed for the magazines to be emptied over the R&R period to allow the springs to rest. (The lesson of not doing this and the subsequent stoppages was learned from the Border Control days of mid 60s)

How one deals with this over a six month or longer tour I can only guess but something a good company sergeant major and his platoon sergeants would be able sort out without missing a beat.

I don't know if the metallurgy of the 70s-80s differs much from today, but springs do not need to "rest". The act of a spring compressing and expanding is what "weakens" it.

Magazines should be downloaded to clean the magazine body, the rounds, and the follower/spring combination. The springs should not be touched or stretched in any way.

Grime most likely caused those magazine malfunctions, but the springs are usually made the culprit.

I could take any one of my Magpul magazines, and after 7 months of continuous storage, fire one off without issues. Now, the Magpul PMAG is a superior design over the standard issue, but the rule about springs remains the same.

ETA: Jinx! Yeah, 82redleg captured the point nicely. Good to see that commonsense transcends services these days.

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 08:39 PM

I remember an anecdote but cannot vouch for its correctness:

Someon found an old MP 38/40 (German WW2 submachinegun, sometimes criticised for poor magazine springs) in an attic, took it and tested it in the open. It fire all thirty rounds in full auto.

(OK, this was just an entertainment contribution, I'm really not sure if the story is real.)

Kiwigrunt

12-21-2010, 08:50 PM

This underloading mags by two or so rounds has been staple diet for over six decades now. Bren gunners used to do it during WWII.

What I just can’t get my head around, from a manufacturers point of view, is why they don’t just make the mags a bit longer so they can theoretically hold two extra rounds, and restrict the movement of the follower so as not to allow those two rounds.

From a consumers perspective, if I am sold a 30 round mag, I’d want to be able to load it with 30 rounds.

There, my totally useless contribution to the thread.

jcustis

12-21-2010, 08:58 PM

No, not useless at all. You already know this I'm sure, but it's good for casual observers of this thread to understand the dynamics.

There are some magazines that are designed (the PMAG of course comes to mind) from the ground up to be "true 30-rounders", in that they can be loaded into a magazine well and under a closed bolt without issues.

The problem with a GI-issue magazine is that when you load it to 30 rounds, it is more difficult for it to seat completely under that closed bolt, as in a tactical reload.

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 08:58 PM

JMA

12-21-2010, 09:21 PM

This may be a function of modern metallurgy and improved springs that weren't available 40 years ago, but I understand that the problem is leaving magazines compressed (loaded), but the cycling of the the spring (by loading/unloading).

I would suggest that it is the change in the manufacture over 40 years.

My sgt would get the magazines emptied, the rounds individually wiped down and the magazines stripped and "washed" out. When he found springs that would not return to their standard full uncompressed length he would toss them or stretch them. Such diligent maintenance under the beady eye of a troop sgt saves lives. So I am happy that at the time there was an issue with the spring.

Normal field cleaning, gas on "3", good magazine maintenance and never had a stoppage... ever. (That was the FN)

Good to see that it is no longer a problem today.

PS: Probably a good thing the militaries have moved on to low recoil weapons as the kick from an FN on a gas setting of 3 would probably lead to multiple shoulder dislocations among our modern warriors ;)

JMA

12-21-2010, 09:30 PM

It's usually not about the magazine length but about the spring.

Btw, some magazines such as the disc magazine of the DPM were underloaded because of an entirely different reason; pressing the last two cartridges in was too difficult because of all the cartridge-magazine friction involved.

Yes, I remember that the training when using 30 magazines on the Bren Gun was to rectify feeding difficulties a stretch of the magazine spring was required to overcome the increased friction and number of rounds (even though gravity asisted in this case).

JMA

12-21-2010, 09:35 PM

What I just can’t get my head around, from a manufacturers point of view, is why they don’t just make the mags a bit longer so they can theoretically hold two extra rounds, and restrict the movement of the follower so as not to allow those two rounds.

Fuchs has raised it before. These long magazines on rifles (certainly the 50 round) interfere with the normal prone firing position and lead to a higher profile/silhouette of the firer which against a half decent enemy would be the kiss of death.

JMA

12-21-2010, 09:37 PM

I don't know if the metallurgy of the 70s-80s differs much from today, but springs do not need to "rest". The act of a spring compressing and expanding is what "weakens" it.

I wonder if someone out there has a link to the current specification on magazine fabrication which would cover this matter?

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 09:47 PM

Fuchs has raised it before. These long magazines on rifles (certainly the 50 round) interfere with the normal prone firing position and lead to a higher profile/silhouette of the firer which against a half decent enemy would be the kiss of death.

Nobody needs to bother about that as long as we're raising the profile of lying troops by 15cm simply with front pouches and a thick hard body armour plate.

I blogged this in September:

Chest rigs

Back in WW2 some snipers (including the most successful one of all) preferred to shoot with iron sights - in part because they would need to rise their head higher for the use of typical powered scopes.

In basic training I learned to keep my heels low when lying down. Heels up increased the silhouette unnecessarily. The trainers stepped about a dozen times on my heels before I had learned it.

Well, I value both military history and the training I got, so maybe that explains why I'm so offended by the widespread use of chest rigs.
Maybe these chest rigs and their extreme effect on the silhouette of a soldier in prone position isn't much of a problem if open fields are avoided and combat is concentrated on built-up areas and forests, but I have my doubts.

It still strikes me as foolish to raise one's silhouette by 10-15 cm in prone position.
The current infantryman's equipment weight is unacceptable anyway, and the only practical path to substantially less weight requires us to shed some equipment. Lighter equipment has often been introduced, but such a step forward is usually negated by additional equipment - until we accept the necessity to apply more strict limits on what we carry with us.
I propose to shed the chest rig in such a process.

You cannot even use it in prone position without rolling by at least about 45° and thus enlarging your silhouette even more!

Kiwigrunt

12-21-2010, 10:12 PM

Fuchs has raised it before. These long magazines on rifles (certainly the 50 round) interfere with the normal prone firing position and lead to a higher profile/silhouette of the firer which against a half decent enemy would be the kiss of death.

Adding a theoretical two rounds to the length of a mag is the equivalent of one rim diameter. Not much of an issue.

JMA

12-21-2010, 10:17 PM

Umm, nothing but those two shortfalls are killers and as you also said:Yes -- and you don't care about the RPD's shortfalls? Shocking! :eek:

Ken, lets take this from the beginning shall we?

You first responded to my comment "There wasn't much wrong with the RPD":

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39.

Ignoring that I had spoken about the weapon itself and not the calibre per se I responded (with a straight face):

Whats wrong with the RPD beyond range and stopping power issues?

Then you responded as at the top.

I must really start to use smilies :D as it seems without them you and others don't know when I'm pulling the p*ss.

I threw out the hook and it was taken.

What is acceptable for the 5.56mm (lack of range and stopping power) seems to be a problem with the 7.62x39mm.

I almost think you were onto my game and were playing me along.

But back top the point.

This issue has two components, 1) the calibre of the round and 2) the quality of the weapon. Compared to other countries also using the 5.56mm the US finds itself in the group that is firing crap ammo through a crap weapon.

But all is not lost ;) at times like this we remember what our dear Winnie said:

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

JMA

12-21-2010, 10:31 PM

Adding a theoretical two rounds to the length of a mag is the equivalent of one rim diameter. Not much of an issue.

Sorry, don't take it personally.

I guess I should have added that IMHO 20 round magazines are good for the additional reason that it is easier to count your rounds (you do train on that I hope?) and contributes to fire control.

I seem to remember the introduction of 5.56 was to reduce the weight carried by the soldier and not to allow for twice the amount of ammo to be used in the same combat situation.

Am I correct on this or was the addition ammo for the same weight an invitation to let rip?

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 10:35 PM

Adding a theoretical two rounds to the length of a mag is the equivalent of one rim diameter. Not much of an issue.

True, 40 rds mags are an altogether different problem.
The height adds up, though. many small increments can be too much.
Keep in mind that AR-15 and bullpups use a sight far above the barrel (ironically, this was done in the AR series to improve controllability in full auto because a buttstock in one line with the barrel doesn't let the muzzle climb as usual with angled buttstocks - and then you need a higher sight or you'd be incapable of aiming at all).

So let's see. We added the magazine length to rifles during the 50's, added the raised sights in the 60's and now we could add even more to the shooter's silhouette height with a mere 15mm longer magazine. It adds up.

Similarly, chest rigs and thick body armour plates enlarge the silhouette as well.

A '1st rate European style' war would repeat some very brutal lessons. In fact, an African militia with a single good grunt as trainer could repeat some brutal lessons.

Kiwigrunt

12-21-2010, 10:46 PM

Keep in mind that AR-15 and bullpups use a sight far above the barrel (ironically, this was done in the AR series to improve controllability in full auto because a buttstock in one line with the barrel doesn't let the muzzle climb as usual with angled buttstocks - and then you need a higher sight or you'd be incapable of aiming at all).

Not to take anything away from the rest of your argument, but I think that in the case of the AR15 it had more to do with the buffer contained in the butt.

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 10:54 PM

Maybe, but maybe the buffer is in the butt because the butt was already meant to be there?

The design is based on the AR-10 battle rifle, and the controllability argument had some weight in it because the AR-10 was chambered in 7.62NATO.

jcustis

12-21-2010, 10:55 PM

This may have been posted here before, but what the heck. It IS NOT PRIMARY SOURCE INFORMATION, but it makes for an interesting read nonetheless if you are at all interested in the path that ammunition development has taken.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

The various hyperlinks within the page lead to several other articles. One of them offers a reminder that we could all probably stand to head.

this brings me to a contentious issue: the use of automatic fire in rifles and PDWs. There are those who argue very strongly that, except in very specific circumstances (mainly, short-range suppressive fire), the use of the auto switch is simply a waste of ammunition: a better hit probability is achieved by aimed semi-automatic fire. There are others who observe that most hits in fire-fights have been achieved largely by chance, because the average soldier in the heat of combat is not in the best state to take cool and precise aim, and what improves the hit probability is getting as many rounds in the target area in the shortest possible time. They point out that if nothing else, a high volume of fire is more likely to keep the enemies' heads down and give the soldier a breathing space to recover. It is unlikely that this debate will ever be resolved, because the best approach evidently varies depending on the circumstances and on the individual soldier.

JMA

12-21-2010, 11:27 PM

nobody needs to bother about that as long as we're raising the profile of lying troops by 15cm simply with front pouches and a thick hard body armour plate.

I blogged this in september:
"chest rigs

back in ww2 some snipers (including the most successful one of all) preferred to shoot with iron sights - in part because they would need to rise their head higher for the use of typical powered scopes.

In basic training i learned to keep my heels low when lying down. Heels up increased the silhouette unnecessarily. The trainers stepped about a dozen times on my heels before i had learned it.

Well, i value both military history and the training i got, so maybe that explains why i'm so offended by the widespread use of chest rigs.
Maybe these chest rigs and their extreme effect on the silhouette of a soldier in prone position isn't much of a problem if open fields are avoided and combat is concentrated on built-up areas and forests, but i have my doubts.

It still strikes me as foolish to raise one's silhouette by 10-15 cm in prone position.
The current infantryman's equipment weight is unacceptable anyway, and the only practical path to substantially less weight requires us to shed some equipment. Lighter equipment has often been introduced, but such a step forward is usually negated by additional equipment - until we accept the necessity to apply more strict limits on what we carry with us.
I propose to shed the chest rig in such a process.

You cannot even use it in prone position without rolling by at least about 45° and thus enlarging your silhouette even more!"

The first thing you need to remember is you should not take a strong position on anything ;) This upsets some people :rolleyes:

Stood on your heels? Oh dear, if that happened today it would lead to a court-martial for the instructor (are they really called trainers today?) and allow the victim to book off for a few months to recover :rolleyes:

OK I am 99% with you on this and yes your point was on the raised silhouette caused by chest rigs rather than longer magazines but will add this.

I was one of the first to take SKS chest webbing and modify it to take 4 FN magazines and minor items in the end pouches. I don't have a problem with this (not because I did it) but because it raised the profile not even a magazine thickness if you consider my normal prone firing position and the actual position of the chest webbing.

The other was that the training was clear when changing a magazine a soldier should pull back into cover, change the magazine, then take up a different firing position and carry on.

My jump-suit (a light weight overall used by armour) and webbing are in the RLI museum (see photo) - see the chest webbing was worn more around the stomach (had to have a free flow of air around the chest in the heat of the African summer - zip would have been down and green T-shirt worn underneath) and the empty magazines were dropped down the front of your shirt (if you lost a magazine in a contact you were required to pay for a replacement).

http://www.mm3admin.co.za/documents/gallery/788b81df-cef4-4a18-8d2d-18df318a2efa/00000054/00002080.JPG
Note: obviously the map did not extend from the pocket on ops to provide a convenient aiming mark.

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 11:43 PM

We are way beyond that.

http://www.bwb.org/fileserving/PortalFiles/02DB022000000001/W26FZH8H806INFODE/IdZ2.jpg?yw_repository=youatweb

JMA

12-21-2010, 11:47 PM

We are way beyond that.

http://www.bwb.org/fileserving/PortalFiles/02DB022000000001/W26FZH8H806INFODE/IdZ2.jpg?yw_repository=youatweb

Date? What exactly did you carry? This was winter dress?

And to think I had problems going through doorways, how do they manage today, what, looking like the Michelin Man and all?

http://www.lindqvist.com/kitSiPub/bilder/20041214004541.jpg

Fuchs

12-21-2010, 11:52 PM

This is the new equipment. I had the 90's equipment, not this. This is an official BWB power photo depicting the IdZ equipment.
I'm not really old, but old enough to have been in the G3 rifle generation and wearing a mix of 60's and 90's stuff instead.

The equipment on the photo is the normal equipment for European terrain. Winter and summer equipment don't vary much, it's mostly a question of how many layers of clothing are behind the upper layer.

-----------

Third from left was the 70's to early 90's equipment:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gurkie2000/3592627606/lightbox/
Add several magazine pouches on the sides of the belt plus the small combat bag on the back of the belt.
I was also issued the fragmentation protection vest as on bottom right of the photo.

JMA

12-22-2010, 12:59 AM

Ease of training. Firing from the standing position. Weapons carriage. Total effects of weapons and ammunition, etc etc.

Ease of training? How so?

The weapon weight issue for the Brits with the SA80 made no difference -
Weight 4.98 kg (11.0 lb) (L85A1 with SUSAT sight and loaded 30 round magazine) as compared to a FN with iron sights and a loaded 20 rd magazine - 5.06kg. There is a length issue 785mm compared to 1053mm but how does this affect carriage or standing and firing?

When we noticed that some of the troopies were battling to carry their weapons at the ready throughout a 8-day patrol we brought in daily "pokey drill" (rifle dexterity exercises) - on recruit course and when in base - to fix that... and it worked.

To state "Total effects of weapons and ammunition" with a few trailing etcs is too vague.

So really other than the weight of ammo there isn't really any "benefit" at all is there?

The SUIT sight wasn't that good and was never on general issue.

So the comparison was bullsh*t. The marksmanship comparison was between the SLR with iron sights and the SA80 with a scope.

Well most soldiers seem unable to articulate what they actually want from a rifle, in terms of things that can be usefully measured.

Yes, especially those who have little varied combat experience. If asked what weapon the need they look over the wall to see what the SAS are using and say thats what they want... and also the same brand of sunglasses. Its a waste of time.

What weapons the special forces need and what the line infantry need are two entirely different things. Special forces may need to vary their kit according to the op the are on while the line infantry seldom need anything other than standard kit.

Ken White

12-22-2010, 02:02 AM

Ignoring that I had spoken about the weapon itself and not the calibre per se I responded (with a straight face):Alas, JMA, the weapon and the caliber are inextricably linked...;)
I must really start to use smilies as it seems without them you and others don't know when I'm pulling the p*ss.Isn't it just amazing how much nuance escapes in this medium. Can't think why...:rolleyes:
I threw out the hook and it was taken.Of course. I'm always happy to serve as straight man for your comedy routines. All I ask is that you return the favor and you've always been most accommodating in that regard.
What is acceptable for the 5.56mm (lack of range and stopping power) seems to be a problem with the 7.62x39mm.Not according to me. IMO both cartridges suffer from being marginal combat rounds -- though I believe the 7.62x39 to be the slightly less bad of the two. I believe the USSR and USA as well as everyone else, including the RSA, who opted for either caliber made very bad caliber choices. Economics are dangerous...
This issue has two components, 1) the calibre of the round and 2) the quality of the weapon. Compared to other countries also using the 5.56mm the US finds itself in the group that is firing crap ammo through a crap weapon.Marginal, yes. No argument from me on that score but "crap" is hyperbole -- you do that a lot for no benefit to your comments.

Both the caliber and the weapon are okay for some things; the caliber for hunting small rodents and little more. The entire Stoner impingement system while fair engineering and technically cute is possibly okay for Law Enforcement or target work but is not really acceptable for an infantry combat weapon. The problem is that there are slightly better -- not one 'really much better' -- weapons out there but the US sunk cost is inimical to wholesale or rapid replacement for minimal improvement in capability. The sad thing is that the 5.56, while marginal, does have some decent combat capable loading and bullets and both the new Marine and Army procurements are of better cartridges. Thus while the cartridge and weapon combo are still marginal IMO, both are several orders of magnitude better than the originals introduced back in 1965. Great they are not -- but crap they also are not, far from it. As Jon noted, the weapon and cartridge combo has killed a bunch of bad guys for us here and there over the last 45 years.

Buying weapons for less than 100K Army and Police, active and reserve is one thing, buying them for over 2.5M active and reserve is a bit more of an expense.
But all is not lost ;) at times like this we remember what our dear Winnie said...Yep, He got it right...;)

SethB

12-22-2010, 03:12 AM

Keep in mind that AR-15 and bullpups use a sight far above the barrel (ironically, this was done in the AR series to improve controllability in full auto because a buttstock in one line with the barrel doesn't let the muzzle climb as usual with angled buttstocks - and then you need a higher sight or you'd be incapable of aiming at all).

While the in-line design of the AR15 is often cited as an attempt to increase controllability, I've never seen an original source for that.

It's more likely there to allow the bolt carrier to have somewhere to go, and to hold the spring.

This is what makes it, arguably, the most accurate self loading service rifle in the world.

Ken White

12-22-2010, 03:32 AM

to the Troop Test in 1963 said. They also credited Melvin Johnson and the Johnson LMG (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun) as the originator of that straight line fulcrum reduction idea and said that Sullivan, not Stoner, was the proponent of the thought and applied it to the AR-10. I suspect that's why a primary source claim for the AR-15 / M16 series is not easily found.

Note the Johnson, even though it benefits from side mounted magazine, still has a high sight line and a poor cheek weld. Automatic fire is vastly oversold, it carries too many penalties in easily portable weapons...

William F. Owen

12-22-2010, 12:34 PM

Ease of training? How so?
18 year olds, who have never seen or fired a gun in their lives shoot better with 5.56mm. It's all because of recoil. I learnt to shoot on a .303 aged 12, so never really an issue for me.

The weapon weight issue for the Brits with the SA80 made no difference -
Weight 4.98 kg (11.0 lb) (L85A1 with SUSAT sight and loaded 30 round magazine) as compared to a FN with iron sights and a loaded 20 rd magazine - 5.06kg. There is a length issue 785mm compared to 1053mm but how does this affect carriage or standing and firing?
In the SLR significant weight was forward held on the forearm. With the L85 is it substantially less, so much easier to fire standing.
Jumping in and out of vehicles/helicopters was a doodle with an SA-80 compared to an SLR.

When we noticed that some of the troopies were battling to carry their weapons at the ready throughout a 8-day patrol we brought in daily "pokey drill" (rifle dexterity exercises) - on recruit course and when in base - to fix that... and it worked.
Yep, pokey drill was excellent. I did it. Dropped from training since then I believe!

So really other than the weight of ammo there isn't really any "benefit" at all is there?
Not on the case of SA-80. There was with almost all other 5.56mm weapons

So the comparison was bullsh*t. The marksmanship comparison was between the SLR with iron sights and the SA80 with a scope.
I concur this was not a rigourous trials regime. Having said that I do not think the SUIT would have made a huge difference.
...but, tests done by the Israelis, using exactly the same sights show "bull-pups" (The Tavors and Mini-Tavors) to deliver noticeably better accuracy

JMA

12-22-2010, 01:19 PM

Buying weapons for less than 100K Army and Police, active and reserve is one thing, buying them for over 2.5M active and reserve is a bit more of an expense.

Not an issue if you compare the amounts of US "aid" to Afghanistan which is (allegedly) being diverted on a regular basis to Dubai (and no doubt elsewhere).

How do you think I'm doing here Ken? Done enough to avoid the attentions of the nitpickers, you think? ;)

So what I'm essentially saying is that if you give those crooks in Kabul the news the US is going to skip a monthly payment so that decent weapons can be bought for the US military that should make the necessary funds available. If not skip next months payment too.

Ken White

12-22-2010, 02:38 PM

How do you think I'm doing here Ken? Done enough to avoid the attentions of the nitpickers, you think? ;) You're still strewing nits -- that tends to attract the nit-pickers. Nits are unnecessary, pestiferous and distracting, hence the attacks. Don't like the attacks, simply stop strewing...

For example:
So what I'm essentially saying is that if you give those crooks in Kabul the news the US is going to skip a monthly payment so that decent weapons can be bought for the US military that should make the necessary funds available. If not skip next months payment too.In order; everyone knows they're crooks (in the western sense -- not in their own eyes...); probably take a bit more than a monthly payment (figure the weapons at ~2M x 1K = 2B x 2 for parts and such = 4B + a like amount for Ammo + cost of training and you're looking at about 6B, over a years worth :D ); that cost doesn't address the politics.

So you use flaky cost and aid figures -- nits. :o

You can and do dismiss those politics as irrelevant and borderline criminal. Most of us here agree on the criminal aspect but know that they are very relevant. We really hate the fact that you don't like that bit of reality but are inclined to believe your imperious dismissal of those politics is simply more strewing of nits...

So you can continue to post as a gadfly, a sort of super nit and you will be accorded the respect -- or lack thereof -- deserved by such a nit. Your choice. :cool:

JMA

12-22-2010, 04:51 PM

18 year olds, who have never seen or fired a gun in their lives shoot better with 5.56mm. It's all because of recoil. I learnt to shoot on a .303 aged 12, so never really an issue for me.

No, that doesn't work the RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) the BSAP (British South Africa Police) recruited directly from the tribal areas and most certainly 99% had never handled a weapon let alone fired one. The training going back to colonial days catered for this and over the 20-26 weeks of the various recruit courses the SLR/FN recoil was nothing. People talk about recoil and I say I never felt it. You get taught to pull the butt-stock into your shoulder and don't notice it after a while. The recruits we got had that mastered already. My sgt and I would take the new troopies to a range and watch them, within 15 mins you knew what you were dealing with. So then correctly handled in training (which the Briots had done for years) there was no reason to suddenly panic about the recoil of the SLR/FN.

In the SLR significant weight was forward held on the forearm. With the L85 is it substantially less, so much easier to fire standing.
Jumping in and out of vehicles/helicopters was a doodle with an SA-80 compared to an SLR.

Training, training, training. To learn on weapon as your first weapon whether its a SLR/FN or a SA80 is much of a muchness. Have you noticed that with a real weapon soldiers tend/need to lean into the weapon with the butt firmly in the shoulder when firing? This contrasts with the SA80 and M4 where there is a tendency to lean back with the butt high and only partially in the shoulder. Our gunners with the FN MAG had no problem in and out of helos and choppers either so how can we claim the FN was a problem.

Yep, pokey drill was excellent. I did it. Dropped from training since then I believe!

While the SA80 loaded and with optics weighs as much as the loaded FN I accept that it is the balance of the weapon that has moved backwards. I have also noted that similar to the US the Brits are also using slings to assist with the carry. Got to bring back "pokey drill". The rearward movement of the balance causes recoil jerk when firing on auto from the shoulder - not that I would recommend firing on auto almost ever.

Note on this. I can't find photos on the net of pokey drill (and don't have an FN pamphlet) and seem to find only US stuff where the exercises are like using the rifle like gym weights (a barbell). Don' know if they understand the concept. You have an old SLR pam? If so any chance of scanning a few of the exercises?

Not on the case of SA-80. There was with almost all other 5.56mm weapons

Well the introduction of the SA80 was not as smooth as one would have wished.

SA80 (Small Arms for the 1980s): The Sorry Saga of the British Bulldog's Bullpup (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_SA80.html)

Sad story.

It has thus taken over twenty years since it was first issued, but SA80A2 seems to be the gun the Army should have had in the late 1980s, not perfect but a lot better. "It was accepted for service because of commercial and political pressures, not for sound military reasons" and is "a story of the decline of British engineering, the sacrifice of skills for political and financial gain, a complacent cold war military bureaucracy, and Britain's role as America's subservient ally in Europe." Finally, let's not forget that twice in the space of less than thirty years, was a British-designed small arm, firing a British designed and tested intermediate calibre cartridge, sacrificed on the alter of NATO standardisation, under pressure from the USA who were adamant that their calibre would be the one chosen as the new 'standard'.

You see, allowing yourselves to be bullied by the yanks again.

I concur this was not a rigourous trials regime. Having said that I do not think the SUIT would have made a huge difference.
...but, tests done by the Israelis, using exactly the same sights show "bull-pups" (The Tavors and Mini-Tavors) to deliver noticeably better accuracy

On such a comparative trial one must compare apples with apples, which they did not do.

So perhaps we all need to accept the the change to 5.56mm was due to pressure from the yanks and nothing to do with any benefits other than weight of ammo.

Now as to optics. Why do you need optics on a weapon that is primarily a close combat weapon (I think that was your description)? This other than for night sights of course.

Remember the Brit training for close quarter shooting was:

Your sights in blur, your target in clear.

Look at what you are shooting at not what you are shooting with.

William F. Owen

12-23-2010, 07:31 AM

No, that doesn't work the RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) the BSAP (British South Africa Police) recruited directly from the tribal areas and most certainly 99% had never handled a weapon let alone fired one.
99% of SLR era recruits had never fired a weapon either. Not the point. Having trained recruits on both SLR and L-85, I can tell you that shooting skill improved more rapidly with L-85. Be Aware, I consider L-85 an abysmal weapon.

The training going back to colonial days catered for this and over the 20-26 weeks of the various recruit courses the SLR/FN recoil was nothing. People talk about recoil and I say I never felt it.
My basic was 26 weeks. I never worried about recoil, and nor did anyone else once they got used to it, but it was a factor in basic marksmanship training that just went away, once 5.56mm appeared.

Our gunners with the FN MAG had no problem in and out of helos and choppers either so how can we claim the FN was a problem.
Well try sitting in the front seat of Land Rover with an SA-80 and then try with an SLR. I found in much easier clambering around inside and in and out of Pumas and Chinooks, with a short weapon rather than a long one. For example, with SA-80, you could strap in across my chest and sit in the Puma jump seat to map read. Not possible with an SLR. It's not a deal breaker. It's just something to think about.

I have also noted that similar to the US the Brits are also using slings to assist with the carry.
Never sure what the issue with slings is.
On SLR we always had a sling fitted. We never really used it, but it was essential to have it there in case you did.
Playing on the range, I've used "assault slings" on M4's and some other weapons, and I can see that they may be extremely useful, especially if you have to shoot wearing a respirator. (OK, not often!)

You have an old SLR pam? If so any chance of scanning a few of the exercises?
I have a whole bunch of SASC Pams. I'll have a look.

Well the introduction of the SA80 was not as smooth as one would have wished.
I lived through it. A totally shameful episode, but also peppered with a few myths as well.

Kiwigrunt

12-23-2010, 09:21 AM

Looks like you had a few good days (http://www.infantryweaponsconf.com/Event.aspx?id=325394) here Wilf.

So you know more about the NZ army than I do ;)......replacing the assault rifle? I did not think that was going to be a happening thing.

JMA

12-23-2010, 10:46 AM

99% of SLR era recruits had never fired a weapon either. Not the point. Having trained recruits on both SLR and L-85, I can tell you that shooting skill improved more rapidly with L-85. Be Aware, I consider L-85 an abysmal weapon.

You have 26 weeks of recruit training to build up shooting related muscles and develop shooting ability. It (marksmanship training) is a journey where there is no requirement for instant results even if the results are largely influenced by the presence of optics on the SA80/L-85 as opposed to none the FN/SLR.

My basic was 26 weeks. I never worried about recoil, and nor did anyone else once they got used to it, but it was a factor in basic marksmanship training that just went away, once 5.56mm appeared.

Which is noted and also that I set my gas setting on 3 to ensure no stoppages ever and the increased recoil was not an issue. Less recoil? Nice (maybe) but no big deal. (Am 6'2" and was around 175lb in those days.)

Well try sitting in the front seat of Land Rover with an SA-80 and then try with an SLR. I found in much easier clambering around inside and in and out of Pumas and Chinooks, with a short weapon rather than a long one. For example, with SA-80, you could strap in across my chest and sit in the Puma jump seat to map read. Not possible with an SLR. It's not a deal breaker. It's just something to think about.

We had Land Rovers (plenty of them all imported from the mother country ;). I "picked up" a folding butt FN on Op Dingo but cant remember ever carrying it with the butt folded. Old habits die hard maybe. The Land Rovers were fitted with brackets (between the seat and the door on both sides against the back) to stow the FN when on routine trips like training but for operational area travel where the threat of landmines was present it was important to point the weapon outwards and avoid in the event of a detonation the weapon becoming a missile itself (If travelling in a Land Rover I always got onto the back and strapped in - as a front left wheel detonation in a Land Rover caused some serious damage to the legs). So sitting neatly on your lap was exactly where you did not want that weapon to be. Same with empty coke bottles (no cans in those days) and other random debris that could in the event of a landmine cause secondary injuries.

Never sure what the issue with slings is.
On SLR we always had a sling fitted. We never really used it, but it was essential to have it there in case you did.
Playing on the range, I've used "assault slings" on M4's and some other weapons, and I can see that they may be extremely useful, especially if you have to shoot wearing a respirator. (OK, not often!)

First off, we understood from NI that there was a need to secure the rifle to the squaddie to prevent it getting lifted by the ingenuous IRA and their supporters. But that did not have a sling purpose nor was a risk in our environment.

The Rhodesian forces developed from the good old hunting, shooting and fishing days of border control (where the "enemy" was the Game Department who didn't like the troopies poaching game for the pot) where the weapon was carried on the shoulder or slung over the shoulder and out of the way.

The approach for 1st tier units was that the sole justification for the presence of a rifleman was his weapon and his ability to use it. This even more so in that we operated in 4-man sticks where every man counted and you couldn't hide the odd wanker in the reserve section. His rifle is not some extraneous embuggerance factor designed to make his life difficult. So it needed to become an extension of himself, his tool of his trade, the sole justification of his existence. So (carrying the weapon on the shoulder or) slinging the weapon over the shoulder, over the neck or resting it on the webbing was not in keeping of this extension of himself and the ability to fire at the flick of the change lever. Hanging slings also tended to get hooked by the bush. The sling swivels were often removed and if not certainly taped up against noise.

When two hands were needed to drag bodies around, clear LZs and carry CASEVACs we used the paracord that secured the rifle behind the shoulder when jumping for that purpose.

I have a whole bunch of SASC Pams. I'll have a look.

Appreciated. I suggest that regular pokey drill helps to make the weapon an extension of soldier himself.

I lived through it. A totally shameful episode, but also peppered with a few myths as well.

Sure, as always, but you accept that article in broad terms?

JMA

12-23-2010, 10:48 AM

William F. Owen

12-23-2010, 11:10 AM

When two hands were needed to drag bodies around, clear LZs and carry CASEVACs
Look at many picture from the Falklands War, and though you see weapons without slings to begin with, as time goes on slings get fitted

We used the paracord that secured the rifle behind the shoulder when jumping for that purpose.
I always considered it silly not have a sling. The issue item was rubbish, so I actually made my own out of an old car seat belt, and some para-cord. I think I still have it!

Appreciated. I suggest that regular pokey drill helps to make the weapon an extension of soldier himself.
Something proper upper body strength training would account for just as well, if done sensibly

Sure, as always, but you accept that article in broad terms?
It's actually a pretty good article. I might even say impressive.
The bit that always ticks me off is that AR-18 (mentioned in said article) was an excellent weapon. I've put well over 1,000 rounds through one, a friend of mine owned and at it was simply one of the best 5.56mm rifles ever made. Light, reliable and easy to handle. UK could have had it. UK chose something else. :mad:

William F. Owen

12-23-2010, 11:44 AM

Yes Wilf sounds interesting, you have a pdf?
It's basically all the stuff I said in the RUSI Defence Systems article.

Giving the boys in the platoons a different calibre isn't going to make them any more effective. The point I added at the conference was that it isn't a great mystery as to how to make dismounted infantry more effective.
The issues are always the emotional, human and organisational needs that prevent the work being done.

JMA

12-23-2010, 07:32 PM

The point I added at the conference was that it isn't a great mystery as to how to make dismounted infantry more effective.

You have a paper on that?

Fuchs

12-29-2010, 05:05 PM

About recoil:

I was told that the G3 has a strong recoil before I shot with it for the first time. The first ten rounds were some low power rounds for a 10m range, merely meant to teach the basics and observe the shooter in the act.

Maybe this familiarization helped, for I didn't notice any problematic recoil with the full power cartridges either. I weighed only 67 kg when I was 18.

Recoil with 7.62x51mm is imho only a problem if
- some eye is too close to a scope
- the buttstock isn't being pressed into the shoulder
- the gun is a terrible design (such as too lightweight or terrible buttstock)
- full auto beyond 30, probably beyond 50m distance

AdamG

07-11-2011, 06:08 PM

Just a reminder, that relics of WWI can still be lethal.

Two Soldiers Killed by One Bullet. Taliban Sniper Used Old British Rifle

Intelligence reports found that the Taliban sniper was a 55-year-old ex-Mujahideen fighter who used an old British-made Enfield rifle and travelled around on a motorbike.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012627/Taliban-sniper-kills-2-British-soldiers-1-devastating-shot-Afghanistan.html#ixzz1RowbNWcp

and while in Libya, the same lesson -

THE rifle in the rebel's hands first saw action 70 years ago against Rommel's Afrika Korps . . . and it is still killing men.

"I shot one of Gaddafi's soldiers with it on the front here at 200 yards," boasted Raban Zanussi, 27, a fighter on the front line between Ajdabiya and Brega. Here, rebels and regime forces face each other across empty desert, their positions marked out with earth ramparts and occasional strings of barbed wire.

"It's a British Lee-Enfield, passed down to me by my grandfather," he said, stroking the rifle's old wooden stock. "It's 200 per cent better than a Kalashnikov and accurate up to 300 yards. But I've only got a tin of 50 rounds, so I don't use it for joking."

He took a bullet from the magazine to demonstrate. It is stamped "GB 1940".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/rebels-armed-with-blast-from-the-past/story-e6frg6so-1226085895819

Pete

07-11-2011, 08:11 PM

That isn't surprising at all. Many Enfields in .303 are still used for hunting deer in America and the Commonwealth. My weapon of choice is a No. 5 Enfield .303, the "Jungle Carbine," said to have been the hardest-kicking military rifle of the 20th century.

Important skills got lost during the evolution from bolt-action rifles in 1937 to selective-fire ones in around 1960. Part of the problem was our victory during World War II, which led us to believe we'd done everything right. That war led us into being firepower-intensive and the spray-and-pray tradition. For several decades we thought, "If it works don't fix it."

The loss of individual marksmanship skills and fire discipline within small units are the main reasons this thread was started in the first place.

Firn

07-12-2011, 03:17 PM

Just a reminder, that relics of WWI can still be lethal.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012627/Taliban-sniper-kills-2-British-soldiers-1-devastating-shot-Afghanistan.html#ixzz1RowbNWcp

I usually don't like to comment on something like that purely on a newspaper article, who are often full of errors, but this is the way I sketch the whole issue:

The mission had been to find enemy snipers’ nests and reassure the population in a small village, but the patrol quickly came under fire.

Only the day before, another patrol had been attacked by accurate small arms fire in the same area, the inquest in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, heard.

Sergeant Major Christopher Smith, of 3 Para, said all the troops knew the ‘main threat was a sharpshooter’.

A patrol with a difficult mission which extended into the day, forcing them to move likely heavily loaded through partially open terrain with many possible hide-outs for enemy forces.

The patrol, a mix of British and Afghan National Army troops, had left their base, Checkpoint Qudrat, early on February 9 aware that insurgents were monitoring their movements.

Private Hendry, from Norwich, and Private Lewis, of Warwickshire, were at the front of the patrol acting as its ‘eyes and ears’.

By Commint or observation they understood that the enemy monitored their moves. The problematics of well known starting points (FOB), a primitive road net work, heavily burdened infantry, potential IED sites, civilian or enemy spotters, the unkown (or known) allegiance of the 'civilians' and an elusive and light enemy who can pick his time and spot are well known.

Both soldiers seemingly lead as (monitored) scouts.

But as they passed a mud-walled dwelling known as ‘Compound 31’ they became aware of activity among Afghan men and a shot rang out, striking another soldier in the leg.

Sergeant Major Smith told the inquest: ‘The boys reacted, firing back.’

It is unclear one of those visible men fired or a hidden one. Most likely their attention was focused one the activity of those men they had seen.

A statement from Soldier A, a member of the Special Forces Support Group who was with Private Hendry and Private Lewis, said: ‘They shouted for a target indication following the first shot...they were shoulder to shoulder on bent knee and had a map out.’

It seems that they wanted to get a target indication and report, with the help of the map back to their leader. That they were hit both with one shot, shoulder to shoulder over a map might indicate that the sniper was hidden of the flank, maybe deep inside a compound or well behind cover/concealment. Deep cover or/and a flanking position might explain togheter with the activity up front why the could not rapidly pin point the source of the first shot. The enemy shooter could even have been rather close and the shooter and the weapon not that accurate, especially as the first shot went low.

Intelligence reports found that the Taliban sniper was a 55-year-old ex-Mujahideen fighter who used an old British-made Enfield rifle and travelled around on a motorbike.

He was described as ‘the most well-trained and patient assassin we have come up against in Afghanistan’.

I think episodes like that show just once again how difficult the overall mission and the situation on the ground makes it for allied soldiers and how easy it sometimes makes it for enemy marksmen. Detected early, moving relatively openly, with their patrol target possibly guessed rather early due direction and experience the enemy could lay an ambush from a possibly prepared site with a likely planned diversion. The motorbike gave him the possibility to arrive and depart quickly.

In this case weaponary wasn't that important and more long-ranged weapons for the squad or platoon wouldn't most likely have made a difference. The seemingly given huge tactical advantage of the enemy, cunning and patience were much more so. So in this case I don't see much of an argument for or against the original article, but of course this doesn't mean much as I wasn't there.