Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
They don't need to.
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepa...st/idfgirl.jpg
Seriously, this is is normal everyday fair, on the streets where I live. I just tell my wife, I'm looking at the guns... and she says that's sadder than me looking at the girls!! :o
I was in the wrong army:confused:.......or maybe I did just look at the guns:confused:.....sad bastard:mad:
I love the M4 and M16, and think they are fine. It has become increasingly difficult to find basic truth in the variety of tests and analyses conducted these days on the weapon systems fronts. Couple that with the plethora of gun rag authors who recycle the same argument: AK vs M16; run it dry or run it wet; 28 rds or 25rds per mag; optics vs iron sights; piston vs. gas key, and you get a lot of hot air but too often little critical thought.
Quite a few folks on the gun porn boards get thmselves all lathered up when discussing the merits of either side of these arguments, and it's downright silly to see the blind love. The universal truths of keeping the any weapon and ammunition reasonably clean, understanding the principles of marksmanship, and knowing how to "run" a gun are becoming lost in a whirlwind of doo doo.
Just look at the OICW and the objective weight of 14 pounds with an elaborate fire control system. I still don't understand the purpose of slapping all that crap and complexity onto a rifle. What happened to suppression, maneuver, and the final assault?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
Agree completely. I posted on this same subject a few months ago (gets resurrected in new threads constantly). In two tours involving 29 months total in Iraq in all forms of combat no one I knew actively complained about the M4/M16. No one in my 129 soldier combat arms company experienced weapons malfunctions that were serious enough to report. I personally fired thousands of rounds through my M4 with no trouble I can recall. The one set of jamming I had was a bent magazine.
One can argue the merits of this or that rifle/caliber/gun, and as you said the gun enthusiasts get really riled up over it. There may be better on the market, but I had no problems with the M4 (personally or professionally) and would happy take one into combat again. I'm actually with the army - I'd rather get a completely new next-gen rifle than waste money on one that would be marginally better.
As far as add-ons, I found short range reflexive sights (M68 or similar) on most augmented by a few 4x ACOGs accounted for all of our needs in that environment.
I have always liked the idea of necking up the 5.56 to 6mm. All that would be necessary would be to switch out the barrels on existing rifles and make the necessary modifications in the ammo supply chain. The existing .223 brass in the system could be retained and used, magazine capacity would stay the same, and the additional weight would be restricted to the grain differential between the new and old projectiles. All in all, I would think this option to be a somewhat reasonable and comparatively minimal modification that would allow for the utilization of bullets in the 100 grain range. Why this idea fails to garner more attention from the bigger caliber crowd I don't know. Perhaps because it is to incremental.
With that being said, I agree completely with the following opinion of Cavguy:
At this point, the focus should be on phasing out of the lighter weight 5.56 ammo(less than 62 grain) in favor of a heavier projectile and providing enough of it so that weapons proficiency can be established and sustained.Quote:
One can argue the merits of this or that rifle/caliber/gun, and as you said the gun enthusiasts get really riled up over it. There may be better on the market, but I had no problems with the M4 (personally or professionally) and would happy take one into combat again. I'm actually with the army - I'd rather get a completely new next-gen rifle than waste money on one that would be marginally better.
The caliber that you are talking about is already extant. 6X45MM. It has some things going for it. Try searching it on google.
That said, there was a significant amount of literature released at NDIA this year concerning small arms ammunition, including data on possible replacement projectiles for 5.56 NATO.
I'll try and prepare a comprehensive post, but it may be a while before I get time.
The 5.56 is designed to maim. It is designed to ricochet inside the body causing extensive wounds. It is designed to pull any enemy back so they don't leave a wounded comrade and bring them into the line of fire. For those who do live it creates an enormous burden on the medical staff that is working to save the life thereby using up the enemies resources.
However, in the current conflict, the enemy does not have the medical support and those that we injure we end up treating further causing a drain upon our resources and creating difficulty for us in managing the war effort.
From a practicle standpoint a larger round with more stopping power would be better suited for a counter-insurgency.
I've never seen insurgent casualties from our rounds "strain" our resources, and even less difficulty in regards to the "war effort". Where are you getting this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darksaga
I have never really felt that the whole "terminal cavitation induced by high velocity argument" was a very sound rationale for the adaptation of a new weapons platform. Only conjecture on my part, but this argument seams more like a rationalization from those who, at the time of implementation, had already made up their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darksaga
Outside of terminal ballistics, there are other areas that should come into play: performance through glass and creating loop holes, immobilizing vehicles, etc.
NDIA 2008 contained a wealth of information on alternate calibers, terminal ballistics, intermediate barriers and other small arms related information.
The theories that Darksaga is posting about are either not in the historical record or overstatements. The 5.56 came from a series of projects dedicated to pushing a bullet fast enough to transfer energy through the bodies own liquids. This only works in brain and liver.
Future 5.56 cartridges will be much improved when dealing with barriers.
Maybe strain is too strong a word however our resources are utilized which does cause a drain on supplies and manpower when we are the only ones treating enemy wounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavguy
My resource from this has been from various briefings that I have attended. In the whole big picture it probably is a small measure however to the medical teams it can be a different story entirely.
What I pulled from was the training that I received and what to expect if one has to deal with a wound from a 5.56.Quote:
Originally Posted by SethB
Darksaga, I understand that. The fragmenting bullet was not discovered until the weapon was fielded. It does do just that, although I've been told that the current M855 ammunition is unreliable in that regard, fragmenting only 20% of the time at optimal velocity.
The "designed to wound, because X amount of people are required to take care of a WIA" is basically an "old sergeants' tale" and is factually and historically incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darksaga
But, it's been passed around long enough to gain currency among those who don't use rigor in determining accuracy.
The 5.56 round is capable of both incredible wounding/killing and also poking a nice neat hole through someone they don't even notice until later. And it's very difficult to determine why.
I witnessed two nearly complete limb amputations caused by 5.56. But that was at extremely close range.
that the 5.56 was originally selected because it would tumble in tissue, not fragment (any fragmentation by a FMJ military bullet is theoretically not by design) but that tumbling never worked as good as it was supposed to and the Army required powder change lowered even the incidence of that.
As you say "...it's very difficult to determine why."
But there sure are a lot of myths out there. Hard to determine why that is, too... ;)
Video from Future Weapons on the IAR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVHLvtArC_g
This could have some comedic overtones:
http://www.military.com/news/article...ernatives.html
Quote:
Hill Aides to Test M4 Alternatives
July 11, 2008
Military.com|by Christian Lowe
In a move that could ruffle the feathers of an Army command that views the Colt Defense-built M4 as the best carbine in the world, a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military's standard assault rifle.
About 30 legislative aides have signed up to attend a July 11 demonstration at Marine Corps Base Quantico, just outside Washington, D.C., that will feature weapons from various manufacturers vying to end the reign of the M16 and M4 as the U.S. military's most fielded personal weapon...
For some reason, I have these visions of teenaged bubbleheaded blondes on the firing lines, with groups of Generals "hitting the dirt" as they flag everyone on the range with the muzzles of the rifles....
I have been to a shoot at Aberdeen with a group of Congressional staffers. Sure there are a few lookie-lous and a few lookers, but most of them have their stuff wired tight and ask some very good questions.