Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 243

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

  1. #81
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Larry was a drugged out whack job crack head with a habit of getting into trouble.

    You can never have to much gun.
    Sam, Nice Story !
    I often get into the American Rifleman's "The Armed Citizen". I have a very interesting LE powerpoint that I recently sent to a few folks herein. Basically, in just a few minutes, over 100 rounds of .223 and .40ACP were fired. The assailant slightly high and armed with a single 1911 in .45ACP. Can't remember how many rounds he received, but the autopsy was amazing. The 55 grain .223 just ran through him and the .40 showed little sign of penetration. I'll send it to you when I'm back at work, or Tom may still have it somewhere handy.

    I still carry my .45 Colt Commander modified by Wilson Combat.

    The hell with that minuscule 9mm !

    BTW, bring back the M3 greasegun

    Regards, Stan

  2. #82
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Well, since we are engaged in the great "which pistol calibre is best debate", I'll pitch in too.

    In the NMSP we carried the Glock 31 in .357 Sig. I wasn't a fan of Glocks before we were issued the weapon but afterward I thought they were great. Easy to shoot, easy to maintain.

    .357 Sig is an ideal compromise. The calibre allows lots of rounds to be carried in the pistol but the round moves fast and flat for a pistol round. Shooting from prone it was easy to make hits on a silhuoette target at 200 yds. With a good hollow point bullet, what more could you ask for?

  3. #83
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Dr. Martin Fackler-US Army Wound Ballistics Expert

    This is my all time favorite website on this subject. There is a wealth of information here. Dr. Martin Fackler has a lot of research here that will dispel alot of myths. Before he retired he was head of the US Army wound Ballistics Laboratory. Take a look at some of the reports they are worth the time.


    http://www.firearmstactical.com/wbr.htm

  4. #84
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    .357 Sig is an ideal compromise. The calibre allows lots of rounds to be carried in the pistol but the round moves fast and flat for a pistol round. Shooting from prone it was easy to make hits on a silhuoette target at 200 yds. With a good hollow point bullet, what more could you ask for?

    I had the same Glock and loved it. My only problem the price of the ammo for the .357 SIG. I traded it for a Glock 23 just because I couldn't afford to feed it now that 5.56 is so darn expensive.
    "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

  5. #85
    Registered User Hellbilly Soldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4

    Default Shooting the HK416

    Sounds like I'm in a rare crowd having actually fired the HK416. It's just a tad heavier than our current M-4s (which we've found to be a good thing in the LFSH and on the Rifle Deck), cleaning is a breeze, and it operates with a lot less trouble. We've shot both FMJ and frangible ammo through it without any problems--as opposed to shooting frange through the M-4 with cycling probs.

    If anyone gets the chance, put a few rounds through one. You just might be impressed. For me, the next question is whether to go with the 416 (5.56) or the 417 (7.62). Mission dependent, I suppose.

  6. #86
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    It's all well and good to talk about shot placement. Shot placement is important and that is why we are taught to aim center mass. Anything you hit in the upper torso has the potential to kill and most things you hit in the lower torso will also kill if not treated properly. When you narrow that shot placement to the nervous system, now you are talking about a low percentage shot. The spine is about two inches wide and surrounded by bone. When the target is directly square with you then the spine should be straight down the center although that is not neccessarily the case. Once the target twists, turns moves, etc then the spine becomes even harder to find, mush less hit. The head is a bit bigger of course but still a tough target to hit in the midst of a firefight. There is a reason they don't teach head shots to most soldiers.

    This is why "knock down power" is important in a round. We are taught to aim center mass because it is the largest part of the body and contains most of the vital organs. The closer to the actual center of the body the more lethal. The problem is that, except for low percentage shot to the head or spine, they do not cause intstant incapacitation. I have heard, over and over of cases of a bad guy getting two, three even up to seven shots to the boweling pin and still being able to fire back. He was often dead after the first shot but didn't know it. Green tip is horrible for this. It's good to have some green tip on hand in case you need the penetration (through car doors etc) but for the most part you don't. 7.62 doesn't suffer from this so much.

    Yes, if you don't hit the target or don't hit the target in a vital area then 7.62 will be less effective than a 5.56 that does but when all things are equal (shot placement, target type and density etc), 7.62 will have a greater effect every time.

    With regards to the soldier who engaged a target with seven rounds without dropping him, I would be willing to bet money that he had never practiced firing from the supine. That is a drill that we do because it turns out that it is actually harder than it would seem. Having just taken two to the plate would make it harder. You stated that he engaged with all seven rounds at a distance of less than five meters, where did he hit him? And while we are on the subject what was the bad guy doing? Was he standing and shooting at the soldier or was he moving? If he was moving forward then seven rounds is a lot to get off accurately in the time that it takes an average man to move forward five meters.

    SFC W

  7. #87
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Good points Uboat509.

    I agree with you that his shots probably were not that accurate from supine, eespecially after being taken down and thinking you're hit, although he said he was making center mass hits. We've taken some combat shooting classes together and during the supine part of the training, he used this as an example to teach some of us the importance of the drill. Out of respect for my friend, I didn't pry into the situation or pretend like I understood what happened as he lost a couple of his friends that day to an IED and I could tell he didn't want to remember it other than taking some objective lessons from the fight.

    I think his point to me and the point I was trying to articulate in my previous post was that it wouldn't have mattered if he had had the .45 ACP or 9mm when it was happening, both suck equally well compared to 5.56 or 7.62.
    "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

  8. #88
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    The main question I must ask, is that do we allow a foreign weapons manufacturer to corrupt our political process (convincing a legislator to hold up the approval of the Secretary of the Army), "cheat" the procurement process (by having "special" sandstorm trials instead of an open competition) and attempt to blackmail the politicians by faking H&K manufacturing jobs in the US (Wilcox mfg.)

    Part of this propaganda effort by H&K has resulted in the continuation and further propagation of M16 "myths" and resultant diminuation of confidence by US Soldiers in their primary weapons system during a time of war.

    Is it possible for a corporation like H&K to conduct a "small war" against the US in order to get payoff in the form of contract dollars?

    As an aside, this is not the first "concept" that H&K tried to foist off on the US military, then called "foul" when their crappy weapon was exposed for what it was.

    G10 - ammunition stunk
    XM8 - plastic receivers melted, degraded at temps as low as 120 F
    Mk. 23 - sitting unused in armories due to being too finicky for combat use
    Last edited by 120mm; 08-31-2007 at 02:29 AM.

  9. #89
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    I don't know why caseless ammo (how about a 6.5 or 6.8 caseless?) hasn't been pursued.
    It HAS been pursued. Repeatedly. And up until this time, no-one has been able to make it waterproof, durable and dimensionally stable.

    In fact, H&K tried to sell the turd known as the G10 to the US military before, which used the unproven and ultimately failed caseless ammunition.

  10. #90
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Upon further reflection, H&K is not committing a Small War upon the US. They are committing aggressive "Marketing".

    But what, exactly, is the difference between "Marketing" and a "Small War?" Perhaps they are more alike than different....

  11. #91
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    As an aside, this is not the first "concept" that H&K tried to foist off on the US military, then called "foul" when their crappy weapon was exposed for what it was.

    G10 - ammunition stunk
    XM8 - plastic receivers melted, degraded at temps as low as 120 F
    Mk. 23 - sitting unused in armories due to being too finicky for combat use

    The 417 isn't crappy though. It is battle tested and I have yet to hear anyone who has used it complain about it.

    The caseless ammo for the G10 did suck but so did a lot of the competition. Colt had some kind of double bullet that would have launched one slug at the point of aim (theoretically) and one several inches below that one (depending on range) It was still 5.56 so neither bullit would have been very big. Someone else what working on a fletchete round, flat trajectory but no stopping power.

    I really don't know much about the XM8.

    The MARK 23 was the gun that the SEALs wanted. H&K built it for them and now no one uses it. Not H&K's fault.


    SFC W

  12. #92
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    It's not as important to know about the individual weapons, as it is to know what Heckler and Koch's automatic response to US military rejection of their product.

    A. Hire/convince/whatever Matthew Cox to write a scathing, inaccurate, and only partially true article in The Army Times. Or even, a series of such articles. (Yeah, politics might have killed the M8 rifle, but the fact that it couldn't take temps over 120 F might have had something to do with it, too!)

    B. Ensure that the article is repackaged in other sources, combined with innuendo and even outright mistruths about current systems.

    C. Bribe senators/representatives to "confront" the US military on your behalf.

    It doesn't help that the Army has been negligent in teaching/promoting basic weapons handling/maintenance. For instance, Light Lube in a desert environment has been wrongly allowed to propagate to the point where it would take relatively heroic measures to kill it. Which the Army is not taking. With heavier lubrication, there is no advantage to the HK416 system. And the additional cost of the HK416 IS significant.

    I recently had this "discussion" with some relatively senior folks. Who ALL believed that "no lube at all" was the answer to desert ops..

    In the issue of small arms, the US Army reminds me of Pop Warner League players trying to learn Pro Sets. I think a relook at training basic principles might be the answer, not a new, complicated and expensive weapon that does the exact same thing as the one we already have.

    In H&K's defense, they aren't the only ones who use this tactic. The Pinnacle Dragonskin armor debacle is in the same vein. Theoretically wonderful product, that doesn't actually work. Ironically, the fact that the producer chose to go the political assassination route rather than work on fixing his product may prevent someone from getting it right, in the future.

  13. #93
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    69

    Default Alternatives

    I dont have any experience regarding assault rifles (carbines), but theoritically a more than 40 yrs old concept could be outdated right?

    If H&K is too pushy there are other weapon manufacturers, the FN FAL served half the world quite well, and SCAR does exist. Someone mentioned that Stoner have designed short stroke piston weapons too. I might be wrong but a weapon that needs a built in cleaning device (aka forward assist) is not 100% reliable. Even in the America's Army FPS after loading the clip into the M4 you saw 'your hand' tossing twice the assist lever. If another weapon fires the same amount of rounds with comparable accuracy one should have not doubt which gun is better.
    Nihil sub sole novum.

  14. #94
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    So, how is the H&K's or FN's 110 year old concept better than the Stoner's 40 year old concept? (Actually, the Stoner "concept" dates back to the Ljungman system dated somewhere around WWII).

    The fact is, small arms technology is peaked out. Money spent in "improving" rifles is, in general, wasted toward more and more smaller increments of "improvements". And there are plenty of gun companies out there with their hands out trying to get some of that "Uncle Sugar" money.

    And as far as the forward assist is concerned, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is not a cleaning device. The forward assist just addresses the military's insecurity vis-a-vis the lack of a fixed bolt handle. All the other world's assault rifles have a forward assist, too. It's called a bolt handle!

    And the "tap" that you give the forward assist is a training issue only. In general, it is completely unnecessary.

  15. #95
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default

    I am realizing I don't know the first thing about firearms, but we were talking about 7.62 v 5.56 rounds a few pages earlier, and someone mentioned the difference in the number of rounds an individual can carry.

    Is there that pronounced a difference in the number of rounds/belts/mags a soldier would carry in a basic combat load between a 5.56-chambered weapon or a 7.62? What about machine guns (i.e., how many rounds does a SAW gunner carry as opposed to a M240B gunner?)?

    I know small sums of weight add up when you're talking about hundreds of rounds (and obviously an individual feels every ounce he's gotta carry on his back), but is the difference that large?

    Matt
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

  16. #96
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Basically, one can carry

    about 240 - 270 5.56mm rds in 30 rd rifle or carbine magazines in lieu of about 180 7.62mm in 20 rd mags at about the same weight.

    Obviously that translates into more ammunition per pound for resupply as well -- or fewer resupply runs for the same number of cartridges.

    400 rds for the M249 weigh slightly more than 200 7.62 for the M240.

    I saw the exact figure on a web site a few months ago but can't find it now. If I run across it, I'll post a link.

    Rounds carried depend on a lot of things, situation dependent and individual preference defined. In Viet Nam, a three man M60 (240 predecessor) team typically carried 8-1,200 rds with more spread about the Platoon supported. There was no SAW equivalent. In the early days in Afghanistan, my son's SAW gunners carried 300 rounds, his 240 gunners carried 200; in both cases with other folks carrying more rounds. It can vary a lot.

  17. #97
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Weights at the end of the lines are in lbs.

    200-round plastic box 5.56mm (M249 LMG) 6.92
    100-round cloth/cardboard bandolier 7.62mm (M60/M240B MMG) 6.60
    100-round plastic assault pack 7.62mm (M60/M240B MMG) 6.70
    200-round metal can 7.62mm (M60/M240B MMG) 18.75

    I think there are standard answers to your questions Matt, but they would be completely wrong if you tried to apply them to the true nature of combat. One gunner may be able to carry more 7.62 that a gunner could ever carry in terms of 5.56, if you're thinking in terms of a corn-bred fed mofo.

    The other issue at work is how one carries all of this ammo. It's never been easy to carry more than a basic fighting load that is easily accessible, with the rest stowed elsewhere.

  18. #98
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Matt,
    Generally in a US Army the basic structure for a rifle platoon you will have three rifle squads each consisting of 2 x 4 mans fire teams (1 automatic rifleman, 1x grenadier, 1 rifleman (who is often now a SDM) and a team leader) with a senior e-5 SGT or e-6 SSG squad leader in charge of the 2 teams. Also with the platoon is a platoon HQs (usually the PL, the PSG, a medic- attached, a FO - attached, and an RTO or 2), and a weapons squad - generally consisting of 7 - 9 guys - which might be laid out as 2 x three man MG teams, a couple of anti armor guys, and a senior squad leader. The 3 man MG teams are usually - the gunner, the assistant gunner and the ammo bearer. The weapon and its equipment are heavy, the rounds themselves are heavy and bulky and it takes all three to carry the load - generally the AB and AG will also carry their own M-4s

    The rifle platoon is a very flexible organization and its soldiers are very adaptable to the needs of the mission. So what goes out on a patrol will often look different then what you see on the pages of the FM 7-8 - the Army's Field Manual on the Rifle Platoon (you can Google and Download it). Also the organization I just laid out is very general -as you go to certain types of units it may look different - and if memory serves the Marines have 3 fire teams in the rifle squads.

    The soldiers and marines that compose these small unit organizations are among the most versatile, innovative, adaptive and intelligent folks in uniform - and we never cease to be amazed at what they are able to accomplish.

    Best Regards, Rob

  19. #99
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    So, how is the H&K's or FN's 110 year old concept better than the Stoner's 40 year old concept? (Actually, the Stoner "concept" dates back to the Ljungman system dated somewhere around WWII).
    I didn't meant that all solutions 'age out' with time (see diesel and otto motors), only that in 40 yrs better solutions may appear with the technical advance.

    The fact is, small arms technology is peaked out. Money spent in "improving" rifles is, in general, wasted toward more and more smaller increments of "improvements".
    More or less agreed. We should be using railguns/fletchettes or other infantry weapons instead gunpowder ones by now given the advance in other fields of technology.

    And there are plenty of gun companies out there with their hands out trying to get some of that "Uncle Sugar" money.
    Like Colt? Come on. Under the current tech level IMHO (given most assault weapons use it for a reason) short stroke piston provides the best value for money. Give Colt or Springfield, Bushmaster whoever 6 months and I have no doubt they can come up with a good weapon. Sticking heads in the sand does not usually solve the problem.

    And as far as the forward assist is concerned, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is not a cleaning device. The forward assist just addresses the military's insecurity vis-a-vis the lack of a fixed bolt handle. All the other world's assault rifles have a forward assist, too. It's called a bolt handle!

    And the "tap" that you give the forward assist is a training issue only. In general, it is completely unnecessary.
    Dunno. Like ol' Murphy used to say $hit happens. And and if it does it is good to have a handy tool to fix it. I mean in the case of a highly unlikely jam it is better to have something which helps to solve it with two moves instead of having to disassemble you weapon in the midst of a firefight. No wonder why Delta went with the SCAR.

    Juts my civilian $0,02.
    Nihil sub sole novum.

  20. #100
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The primary issue with the Forward Assist is that

    the most likely thing to initiate its use is a fouled or obstructed chamber and / or a dirty cartidge -- that is the worst possible time to use it. It was and is an unnecessary addition to the design. Better and safer to have left it off and forced the shooter to look in the breech and clear the problem.

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
  •