Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 243

Thread: Better than M4, but you canít have it

  1. #141
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    I learned the ways of a shotgun on an issued Mossberg 500, which I like a lot.
    I was trained on the Mossberg 500 and I still have my issue weapon (personal purchase program).
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  2. #142
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We did hours and hours of dry-training in a classroom using aiming boxes, rifles, pieces of paper, a pencil, and that funny-looking piece of metal (I forget its name) with the tiny hole for an NCO or buddy to plot your aim on the paper tacked up on the bottom of the wall. This was how we learned breath control and the principles of marksmanship, laying on the cold floor and practicing our aim, weeks before we ever went out on the range for the first time. You didn't get to fire live rounds until you had passed weeks of dry-training - the NCOs made sure of that.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 11-19-2007 at 01:26 AM.

  3. #143
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Yes, we still have shotguns, but they are pretty much limited to military police, certain security forces, and at the Regimental armory level, IIRC.

    I learned the ways of a shotgun on an issued Mossberg 500, which I like a lot.
    Are they still using them as offensive weapons? We still use them but prior to Iraq they had been pretty much relegated to use as a breaching tool. As far as I know, big Army still uses them exclusively for that purpose. Some of the guys I worked with over there like to use them in the turrets of their hummers. They make a nice attention getting bang and you can put buck shot into someone's trunk without worrying about overpenetration but you still have a lethal weapon in your hand for that jackass that wants to toss a grenade at your vehicle.

    SFC W

  4. #144
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default I could see where confusion comes in.

    Norfolk,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. #145
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

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

    I realize now that resorting to TRB (and striking the magazine with the degree of force instructors sometimes used) when you have a misfeed can actually make it much worse, so it's better to take that second to cant and look, and resolve the indicator problem from there. Observing the bolt position is the way to go in my mind now, and during periods of limited visibility, do it with fingers.
    Now I can see not only why I'm confused, but so is a good deal of the USMC it would seem. Yeah, canting the weapon slightly to the left to check the bolt position is practically always the right way to go (although as soon as I felt the bolt slam back - it sure wasn't the M-16's recoil that I was feeling - it was time to reload. If you've got a real problem, you know so you can fix it right away. We'd have been made to suffer if we'd used TRB in the RCR - even slapping the mag once it had been firmly inserted into the weapon was cause for disciplinary action. Huh, it's kind of funny the things that you can take for granted about another military service.

  6. #146
    Council Member Ender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    The final point I re-learned is that most Marines simply do not have the muscle memory to run a gun without looking at it or at their gear. Try as we might to keep them focused downrange on the threat area, they simply cannot do it without actually taking longer to resolve a problem or reload. When bullets are in short supply, nothing works better then a few hours of dry-fire reload and weapons-clearance drills.
    It really does boil down to this and if we can instill that muscle memory the time/effort saved will be worth the monotony. Great post and great tips.
    Last edited by Ender; 11-22-2007 at 04:34 AM.

  7. #147
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I had the opportunity, Thursday, to represent my unit at a German shooting range (aka Schuetzenschnur qualification).

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

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

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

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

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

  8. #148
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. #149
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

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

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

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

  10. #150
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Iím beginning to change my mind to when it comes to ďdoctrinalĒ weapons-handling techniques, and am more inclined to force the individual to make a decision as to what to do while running the gun. Some critics may say that the loss of gross motor skills, tunnel vision, etc., will conspire to get you killed, but there just isnít enough evidence in my mind to support making all of our techniques ďthe only way to do it.Ē Take for example the ďspeed reload.Ē If we fought until we ran dry and dumped the magazine on the deck every time, we could find a snail trail of magazines as we moved through a contact down a city street. The opposite situation is when youíre attempting to put someone down at 5-25m and run dry and have no means of moving to cover. The gunfighter needs to make that conscious decision regarding where the spent magazine goesÖit should be generally the case that it gets dumped to the deck, but what if it is pitch black outside and the battle has just begun? Iím actually beginning to think that exchanging magazines in the same manner as a Condition 1 reload with retention is a better tactical choice; all one needs to do is skip the step of stowing the magazine and keep it keep it tucked between his fingers while he finishes putting down the immediate threat, then finds the dump pouch.
    jcustis,

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

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

    "Training should be like a bloodless battle so that battle is just like bloody training." - Roman Legion Maxim

  11. #151
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

    I've been out of the active duty operating forces for some time (but hopefully headed back within the next 6 months), so I can't say for sure that it isn't being taught by the crafty small-unit leaders, but simple things like engaging targets from behind (deep cover), around, or over cover are not taught in the new CMP. I'm talking very basic techniques, like those espoused by the former Col Cooper in Art of the Rifle. Qualifying on Table 1 and 2 of the CMP is the baseline requirement now, but I'm just no so sure that those are the appropriate gunfighting skills we need to train and sustain on. The more I think of it, tremendous quantities of ammunition are expended to prepare our Marines for the possibility that they are going to face an enemy in a close quarters gunfight, where that enemy popped out from a door into the hallway at 5-25m, or dropped his hands after being detained and went for a concealed weapon, or refused to comply during a cordon and search and began to raise a weapon. We have less time now to reinforce those good habits of maneuvering as a team, subordinate to a squad and squad leader, while watching the 300mil safety fan, redistributing ammo during the attack or upon consolidation, and making that snap shot under limited exposure times.
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-02-2008 at 02:48 AM.

  12. #152
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default This is embarrassing but

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

    Anyhoo

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

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

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

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

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

    The biggest design drivers in IWs are fashion and cost/profit. Nothing to do with what soldiers need.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  13. #153
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I have had some long talks with FN on this.
    PM sent.

  14. #154
    Registered User Stupendous Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germany, at present
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    I had the opportunity, Thursday, to represent my unit at a German shooting range (aka Schuetzenschnur qualification).

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

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

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

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

    So, in summary, HK G36/M-8 = BAD, HK P8 = GOOD.
    As far as the optics in the G36 are concerned, I have to largely agree with your assessment. Classical example of "designed by committee", one might say and especially perplexing considering what was already available on the civilian market at the time. One point that perhaps should be additionally mentioned is that the reflex sight is very susceptible to adverse conditions and easily fogs up. Those German units who have a say concerning their armament like KS-Kp, FJ-Recce etc. almost uniformly utilize EOTechs or Aimpoints instead.
    However, proper cheek weld or rather the absence of it seems to be an aspect of lesser importance to me with regards to the short distances the reflex sight is ought to be employed within. Similarly high riding setups like eg. a piggyback ELCAN(ACOG...)/Docter sight are as far as I know very popular with competitive shooters. The rifle itself sporadically exhibits POI shifts (in the MOA range) during extreme temperature changes which has rendered it unpopular with civilian shooters here. Of course, this will not be an overwhelming concern in military applications. In addition, the magazine lips apparently wear out after a decade or so and seem to cause FTFs. Apart from that the G36 has been received fairly well in the Bundeswehr, barring the ubiqutious .308/.223 argument from many that have grown accustomed to the G3. All that said, I do not particularly like the rifle in its present, issued shape, and prefer AR 15-style ergonomics, but it still has quite endearing qualities, such as its extremely high reliability and ease of maintenance.
    On a sidenote, the ergonomics of the XM-8 (mag release) are somewhat different from the G 36 which you can see here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63cxeEq5gUk
    Oh, and I really dislike the P8, but that is another story.
    Cheers,
    Richard
    Last edited by Stupendous Man; 01-02-2008 at 04:16 AM.
    "First, decide who you will be. Then, what you must do."

  15. #155
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

  16. #156
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Have any of you gents ran one of the new .458's that Rock River Arms is putting out (upper receiver for the M4)? I saw a write up about them in "Leatherneck" last month. Seems like a solid round.
    "Amateurs practice until they get it right. Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong."

    "Training should be like a bloodless battle so that battle is just like bloody training." - Roman Legion Maxim

  17. #157
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Down the Shore NJ
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Great discussion Gentlemen! Here is a little historical house keeping.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So much for my 1 second of fame.
    Last edited by RJ; 02-07-2008 at 02:33 PM.

  18. #158
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Not mentioned in this thread yet is the 7.62x39 Stoner SR-47
    http://www.defensereview.com/modules...=print&sid=229

    and some background on the SCARS
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...76.html?page=5

  19. #159
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

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

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

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

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

  20. #160
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

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

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

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

    Sometime I'll tell you the story over a beer about the lead ball ammo and the new curved base metal targets.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •