Interested in this trend. Who and under what circumstance would someone want to fire a rifle from a bipod?Originally Posted by Fuchs
Firing from the bipod makes you more accurate. You might not always be able to employ it, but when you can, why wouldn't you take advantage of the extra stability?
It's often used by SDMs when attempting longer range shots- 300+m. The Gripod (similar, but not exactly what's pictured) combined with an ACOG and a shooter who knows what he is doing makes the M4 good out to 500m, maybe more.
I think it's a consequence of three factors
- magnifying optical sights on assault rifles and carbines
- the acceptance of the idea that a fore grip improves the chance of hits (and once you've got a fore grip, you don't need much additional weight for a bipod)
- the fact that fore vest pouches and front armour plate raise even the lying soldier by about 5-15cm, thereby making the use of a bipod more reasonable
The Israeli Galil ARM, which as I am sure you know a slightly-modified form of which, the R4, is the standard service rifle of the South African Army (and has been in service here for about 30 years), comes with a bipod as standard:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm
MARCORSYSCOM has released limited fielding info for the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, due to hit the streets in 2nd of FY 11. Looks like each MEF is going to get a battalion's worth (84) pushed to a single battalion, and Marine Forces Reserve is going to get a battalion fielding of 84 as well, to a unit slated for an OEF rotation. One LAR battalion (mine) is getting 72.
The battalions are getting charged with recording maintenance actions and parts usage to provide a written assessment at the conclusion of the limited fielding event.
Associated Weapons Systems and Equipment will consist of:
- M27 IAR
- Squad Day Optic (SDO)
- 3-pt combat sling
- Grip Pod
- cleaning Kit
- TM 11810A-OR
- 10 x Government Issue Aluminum Magazines
I guessed at an expected combat loadout of 10-12 magazines, and now this confirms my theory on what we would see. Now, if only the box magazine of choice was a PMAG and not the basic GI-issue.
Looks like it will trim out at 11.46 pounds, if my math is correct.
If I am very, very lucky, my replacement will show up about the time I re-deploy, and I can scheme my way into a special project officer billet to incorporate this weapon into the battalion's training cycle, and work on the doctrinal constructs for its employment...Hmmm, to be a senior lieutenant again.
Last edited by jcustis; 05-30-2010 at 02:22 PM.
And so did the G1, STG58 and the Dutch version of the FAL. I have never understood why the other 90 or so nations using this rifle have never used the bipod. It is an excellent piece of kit. Sure, it adds some weight, but so does a scope. Both increase accuracy.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Just be naughty, they may bump you down and put you into that slot as a punitive measure. That would be a bummer.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
I was an immediate convert the "gangster grip" as it's often called, and went to the gripod as soon as we got them. Another great feature not mentioned is that it makes for a much more stable shooting platform when in a hatch of a flat topped armored vehicle. It also lets you keep the weapon at the ready while mounted with minimum fatigue.
Few are the problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of concentrated firepower.
This one's for Ken...
Kiwigrunt and I were discussing via PM about the IAR, and the question we had revolved around the BAR. Although it is not reasonable to compare the BAR to the various SAWs and even the new IAR, what was the employment technique for the weapon?
Did the BAR support the team, or was the team supposed to support the BAR< and seize the next piece of dirt to allow it to get into action?
Yea and the bipods can be used to cut wire as well.
I am still trying to find out the circumstances under which a rifleman would use this bipod.
Is there some data proving that the universal use of these sights has imporved accuracy? I wonder.
I don't see the weight factor as an issue. The fore grip advantageous only on weapons which are light and have minimal recoil. Do the people who fit these things get taken to the range to prove that their marksmanship has at least not deteriorated after fitting or is it just assumed that all is OK?
When I see pictures or video from Afghanistan the first word that comes into my mind is silhouette. Can be receiving effective enemy fire if they all are standing head and shoulders above a mud wall? Doubt it.
Long magazines make things worse. What ever happened to "count your rounds", "pull back into cover to change a magazine and come back up in a different place", and "put on a full mag at the beginning of an assault"? Saw a photo around here with a comment by Ken as to what the story told about poor basic soldiering. I absolutely agree. Something is not right.
I can't speak for the military as a whole but there are a lot of us in my organization who like the fore grips for CQC. It is isn't intended to give you any advantages at longer ranges, just a steadier and more comfortable grip for engaging targets quickly at CQC ranges (typically 3-7 meters though it can, of course, be more or less) while moving. The addition of bipods or grip pods is a personal choice and it does increase accuracy at longer ranges although not everyone considers the increase worth the weight/hassle. Also, again, I cannot speak for the military as a whole but we have to go to the range with any equipment that we want to use on a deployment.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
Extensive testing, and extensive operational experience. It basically the most effective thing you can do to enhance a weapon. The British Army could have block issued an optic sight in 1976, but it got snowed under by the "musketry" folk
Trials suggest folk shoot better with them, than without them- thus the new L85 fit for UK forces.Do the people who fit these things get taken to the range to prove that their marksmanship has at least not deteriorated after fitting or is it just assumed that all is OK?
Actually this has been noted, and is of concern to a lot of the folks I talk to at least. There are grounds for better understanding some of the behaviours observed on videos allegedly shot during fire fights.When I see pictures or video from Afghanistan the first word that comes into my mind is silhouette. Can be receiving effective enemy fire if they all are standing head and shoulders above a mud wall? Doubt it.
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
Humans are humans, no exception - and those behaviour patterns are quite normal.
The 'problem' is that Taliban aren't lethal enough to punish careless behaviour sufficiently. The 'I'm here, hit me or my plate' behaviour was regularly erased during the first days of combat in major wars.
Some careless soldiers die, most others learn their lesson and are careful.
MANY patterns, customs, 'lessons learned' and equipment choices of blue helmet missions and unnecessary small wars are completely unsuitable for major wars and might cost the Western world much more blood in a later conflict than these did.
Just examples;
I have a very strong suspicion that 8 kg level IV body armour is a disadvantage, not an advantage in a indirect fire kills 80%, armour kills 5%, air kills 5% major war environment.
The whole "presence patrol" idea is antiethical to the importance of not being seen&identified by effective enemies in a major war.
1 comment about ARM. Estonia has ARM's. If soldiers have choice, they prefer AR (rifle without bipod), because rifle without this kind of bipod is more accurate. The problem is that bipod is attatched directly to the barrel. And barrel does not like this
OK, my essential point is that the idea of a soldier buying something by mail order and fitting it and arriving 'ready' for ops the next day is a worry. I am just questioning whether this 'customisation' of weapons actually improves performance and also whether this is tested and measured. From my personal experience we found that soldiers often did things to impress their mates. That needed oversight and control.
What I am suggesting is that more than merely going down to the range and firing off a some ammo when changes are made the soldier should really be required to reclassify fully before being allowed to take the 'mod' out on ops. Is this not a more professional approach given the importance of each soldiers weapon ability especially at close ranges?
Now we are talking. Have you any hard data on this?1 comment about ARM. Estonia has ARM's. If soldiers have choice, they prefer AR (rifle without bipod), because rifle without this kind of bipod is more accurate. The problem is that bipod is attatched directly to the barrel. And barrel does not like this
The effect on the barrel varies from weapon type to weapon type and even among weapons of the same type.
The barrel's vibrations are being distorted by the additional mass that's connected to the barrel.
It can add a MOA or more to the dispersion diameter.
The effect is closely linked to the keyword "free floating barrel".
If they were just standing there looking over the wall we could assume that there was merely the odd stray round in the area. But when you see these soldiers firing rapidly with rifle and machine gun (often without the cheek positioned on the butt) you know you are either looking at a Mickey Mouse unit or soldiers hamming it up for the camera.
Yes, I think that is fair comment.MANY patterns, customs, 'lessons learned' and equipment choices of blue helmet missions and unnecessary small wars are completely unsuitable for major wars and might cost the Western world much more blood in a later conflict than these did.
I'm afraid the need has reached a psychological level. I asked a while ago whether there was any data on the reduction of injuries through the use of body armour and got no reply. I once saw the stats from the US in Vietnam indicating the injuries to the various parts of the body. Probably quite simple to pull these off the medical records and make some sort of intelligent comparison.Just examples;
I have a very strong suspicion that 8 kg level IV body armour is a disadvantage, not an advantage in a indirect fire kills 80%, armour kills 5%, air kills 5% major war environment.
It seems clear that it hinders the movement of the wearer so either the stuff weighs too much or the soldiers are not trained to a fitness level wearing the body armour. Should wear it all the time other that in the shower or in bed (if in a secure camp).
Yes indeed this 'type' of patrol has appeared since my time. We had reservists, policemen and other odds and sods who escorted civilian specialists to visit villages etc, so perhaps it was an escort patrol of sorts. Not a task for any self respecting soldier... in any war.The whole "presence patrol" idea is antiethical to the importance of not being seen&identified by effective enemies in a major war.
Last edited by JMA; 06-01-2010 at 06:56 PM.
And how long did it take for someone to notice this?
Last edited by JMA; 06-01-2010 at 06:36 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks