Results 1 to 20 of 243

Thread: Better than M4, but you can’t have it

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    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.

  2. #2
    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

  3. #3
    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.

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
  •