Elk Hunter
Big is shock.
A lot of training is always better than a little.
5.56 is good, light and easy to carry and shoot. However, I've seen too many people hit with the little pills who keep on moving, too many bullets not penetrate minor cover and too many rounds deflected in moderate vegetation to agree that 5.56 is a good combat cartridge.
45
Shock is at least as critical in handguns if not more and I still dont have a .45Anyone would have more luck moving that argument than the 30-06 v .223
carl, Fuchs and Ken White explained my point.
It seems that calibre debate is not over.
Mattis pushed for 6.8mm ammo
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._ammo_031010w/
... and I don't understand fully (foliage, ground, wall? aspects) this argument
after watching this youtube video.Does that mean that 7.62 rounds don’t have sufficient stopping power?” Brogan asked about Kasal’s actions. “I submit the answer is no. If there had been a central-nervous shot, it might have dropped him. The same is true with 5.56 ammunition. Location is more important than stopping power.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzIOa...eature=related
Why some people want .45 pistols when they can get hollow point 9 mm ammo?
http://pistol-training.com/archives/2436
...because there's .45ACP hollow point ammo as well.
Terminal ballistics are very complicated, a discussion rarely makes sense because most often most participants know misleading anecdotes and myths while the hard facts are based on imperfect data and testing devices.
(I know you guys are having fun, but you do realize this is like debating about Ford Trucks vs Chevy Trucks; or the virtues of Blondes vs. Brunettes, right?)
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Bob's World said:
I'm not so sure.Ford Trucks vs Chevy Trucks; or the virtues of Blondes vs. Brunettes
Some time ago there was discussion somewhere about M855 and this poor Volkswagen with lucky passangers.
If SOST works as promised I may take my words back.
To bring this back on track...
I looked a bit around and found this concerning optics, weapons etc. This is of course about snipers in WWII, and rather good ones at that, but I think it is telling about the challenges of accurate rifle fire under "difficult" situations.
Originally Posted by Wiki
Widhofner questioned three seasoned snipers individually. They are designated in the order A, B and C. All three were members of the Third Mountain Division of the former German Army. With respect to their person please note the following:
A. Matthäus Hetzenauer of Tyrol fought at the Eastern Front from 1943 to the end of the war, and with 345 certified hits is the most successful German sniper.
B. Sepp Allerberg of Salzburg fought at the Eastern Front from December 1942, to the end of the war, and with 257 certified hits is the second-best German sniper.
C. Helmut Wirnsberger of Styria fought at the Eastern Front from September 1942, to the end of the war and scored 64 certified hits (after being wounded he served for some time as instructor on a sniper training course).1. Weapons used?
A. K98 with six-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.
B. Captured Russian sniper rifle with telescopic sight; I cannot remember power. K98 with six-power telescopic sights.
C. K98 with 1.5-power sights. K98 with four-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.
2. Telescopic sights used?
A. Four-power telescopic sight was sufficient up to a range of approximately 400 meters, Six-power telescopic sight was good up to 1,000 meters.
B. Used for two years a captured Russian rifle with telescopic sight; yielded good results, Six-power telescopic sight mounted on K98 was good.
C. 1.5-power telescopic sight was not sufficient; four-power telescopic sight was sufficient and proved good.
3. What is your opinion on increasing the magnification of your telescopic sights?
A. & B. Six-power was sufficient. There was no need for stronger scope. No experience with greater magnification.
C. Four-power is sufficient in both cases.
4. At what range could you hit the following targets without fail?
A. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters.
B. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing up to 600 meters.
C. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing Man up to 600 meters.
5. Do the ranges indicated by you apply only to you, i.e. the best snipers, or also to the majority of snipers?
A. & B. Only to the best snipers.
C. To me personally as well as to the majority of snipers. A few outstanding snipers could hit also at longer ranges.
B added: Absolutely positive hitting is possible only up to about 600 meters.
6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size?
A. About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability.
B. 400 to 700 meters.
C. About 600 meters, rarely more. I usually waited until target approached further for better chance of hitting. Also confirmation of successful hit was easier. Used G43 only to about 500 meters because of poor ballistics.
7. How many second shots / Additional shots were necessary per ten hits?
A. Almost never.
B. One to two. Second shot is very dangerous when enemy snipers are in the area.
C. One to two at the most.
The percentage under "realistic" circumstances in a Great war. See also question 4.
13. Percentage of successful hits at various ranges?
Up to 400 meters A. 65 percent C. 80 percent
Up to 600 meters A. 30 percent C. 20 percent
Additional information: A. This is why about 65 percent of my successful hits were made below 400 meters.
B. Do not remember. Mass of hits were below the range of 600 meters.
C. Shot mainly within range of 400 meters due to great possibility of successful hit. Beyond this limit hits could not be confirmed without difficulty.
14. Do these percentages and ranges apply to you personally or are they valid for the majority of snipers?
A. This information is applicable to the majority of snipers as well as to the beat snipers, for: the majority of snipers could hit with absolute certainty only within a range of 400 meters due to their limited skills, the best snipers could hit with reasonable certainty at longer ranges; they in most cases, however, waited until enemy was closer or approaching the enemy in order to better choose the target with respect to its merit
More about optics and their importance:
19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope (binos)? What magnification did the double telescope have?
A. 6 x 30 enlargement was insufficient for longer distances. Later I had a 10 x 50 telescope which was satisfactory.
B. Double telescope was equally important as rifle. No further information.
C. Every sniper was equipped with a double telescope. This was useful and necessary. An enlargement of 6 x 30 was sufficient up to a range of about 500 meters.
20. Would you prefer a periscope which allows observation under full cover?
A. Was very useful as supplement (Russian trench telescope).
B. No.
C. Was used when captured.
21. Were scissor stereo telescopes (positional warfare) used?
A, C. Yes, when available. Was used mutually by sniper and artillery observer.
B. No.
Wind and moving targets.
27. How did you overcome side wind?
A. By my own judgment and experience. When necessary, I used tracer ammunition to determine wind drift. I was well prepared for side wind by my training at Seetaleralpe where we practiced often in strong winds.
B. By own judgment. We did not shoot when side wind was too heavy.
C. No explanation since snipers do not shoot with strong winds.
28. Can you recall the rules pertaining to your behavior when shooting at moving targets?
A, B, C: No; importance is own judgment and experience as well as fast aiming and fast firing.
TO&E and "designated marksmen"
10. Were you incorporated into a troop unit?
All three belonged to the sniper group of the battalion. C was the commander of this group. They numbered up to 22 men; six of them usually stayed with battalion, the rest were assigned to the companies. Observations and use of ammunition as well as successful hits had to be reported daily to the battalion staff. In the beginning, the snipers were called up cut of the battalion, as the war continued and the number of highly-skilled snipers decreased, they were often assigned and given their orders by the division. In addition, a few marksmen in each company were equipped with telescopic sights. These men did not have special training but were able to hit accurately up to about 400 meters and carried out a great deal of the work to be done by "actual snipers". These specially equipped riflemen served in the company as regular soldiers. This is why they could not achieve such high scores as the "snipers".
Recruitment:
17. From what group of persons were snipers selected?
A. Only people born for individual fighting such as hunters, even poachers, forest rangers, etc without taking into consideration their time of service.
B. Do not remember. I had scored 27 successful hits with Russian sniper rifle before I was ordered to participate in sniper training course.
C. Only soldiers with experience at the front who were excellent riflemen; usually after second year of service; had to comply with various shooting requirements to be accepted in the sniper training courses.
To be continued...
Firn
Last edited by Firn; 03-12-2010 at 01:12 PM.
Inland Manufacturing Division, General Motors Corporation made more M1 Carbines than any other manufacturer during World War II, so Chevy has the edge when it comes to small arms.
About Finnish snipers. According to 21th century definition, those guys were more like marksmen. The irony is that most of them fought without optical sights. Simo Häyhä, the soldier who is on the top of world sniper kills list, had rifle without optical sight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
PS I'd like to ask also advice from you. How sharphooters became snipers during I WW? Their tasks were the same (sharp shooting), but they got new name. Is this just flirt with words by Englishmen? I can't find no explanation to this
This is funny picture. Upper picture says that those guys are snipers, but lower picture talks about scharfscütze (which means sharposhooter in German).
http://books.google.ee/books?id=qLCm...age&q=&f=false
In 1944 there was a guy in my Dad's basic training unit at Camp Roberts, California who couldn't qualify with his carbine because he was terrified by it. He was given remedial training with a coach and he qualified Expert.
Having tutored recently quite a few people for our hunting exam, the greatest aids to decent shooting in training were:
a) proper technique&training
b) low recoil (caliber, soft pad, weapon weight, shape of the stock, proper gunfit)
c) low blast (thick ear protection, barrel lenght, caliber)
d) good trigger
Stress and adrenalin do mitigate b) and c), but make it hard to do a) well. Some people tolerate blast and recoil much better then others, just as some have a lot more talent for shooting. Note that this exam is take by old ladies as well as by young men. Generally the level of shooting experience is rather low to nonexistent.
Interestingly in Sweden almost every hunter uses now a sound suppressor, as I have seen recently during a hunting trip. It helps with b) and c) a lot.
Last edited by Firn; 11-13-2010 at 10:50 AM.
And with this thought...
...here are some interesting links:
http://www.blogtopsites.com/outpost/...b41827ba80c9c9
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm
At least I thought they were interesting.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
They are interesting and he's correct. However,
the situation is unlikely to change much. It is changing slightly due to Outcome Based Training being introduced to the Army as a result of AWGs efforts but it's unlikely to improve significantly due to time and cost factors -- and lack of necessity (benefit, yes; necessity, no. Sad but true...).
The introduction of Designated Marksmen and relearning the value of Snipers have been two of the benefits of these wars. The interesting thing will be to see how long both last after we draw back from the ME and South Asia...
The Congress is willing to fund improved competence in war time. In peace time, it gets reluctant to fund that -- in part due to fear of training people to do things that most civilians would rather not give thought to. Like efficient killing...
Cost of training, yes, but "real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to skills" is rubbish. Can we say that of the Marines who were engaging the Germans in WW 1 at 800 yds with open sights? Yes, different wars and different times. But marksmanship has to be taught as does fire discipline and this takes time and money-that I believe and that .
But to say you cannot train a human is simply not true. Culture makes a difference but this can be overcome. Yes there are those who are more suited to warfare but anyone can be trained. Training is the core issue whether you use a musket or a M107. Weapon Fundamentals are the same for whatever war you fight until the plasma rifle comes in and I think this is what the Army is waiting for. However until that day comes proper marksmanship with a good rifle can save the day. The tactics are what will have to change to deal with the threat.
I agree that the killers on the battlefield are the crew served weapons but a rifleman at the right place and time can alter the battle and he needs a good rifle to do it. There will be times when you will not have priority on supporting arms. Then all you may have is what is organic to your unit. The M16 series has and will be with us for awhile and the 5.56 can and has been improved upon. Is it optional? No. But it is what we are stuck with. I believe as other studies have suggested that the optimal round is in the 6 to 7 mm range. However I doubt the rifleman will see it until an advance in body armor forces the change.
You can say what you will about cost, but with time anyone can be trained. The Will just has to be there to do it.
Death Sanctions All Mistakes
Sorry, it's not rubbish. For example, why can only some men be military helicopter pilots? Why can only some men be EOD Operators?
Yes training costs money. There is a very finite budget as to how much you can fund individual marksmanship training, and IMO most of the money is wasted aiming for a standard to reaps almost nothing in the context of how it is taught. Most marksmanship training is mostly about process, and feeding the "skills monkey."
Marines in WW1 were most likely volley firing. Volley fire (Section Fire) does create casualties. A British Platoon of 1914 could deliver about 600 rounds per minute into beaten zone at about 800 yards. The grouping requirement in 1921 was 4 inches at 100 yards, so individual fire against standing targets was 300 yards - and is today!
There is a vast difference between what you can do on the range and what counts in combat. Extensive testing by the UK and Canada has shown that they do not read across. Under even very small amounts of stress, marksmanship drops off dramatically. We could make far better use of time and funds by rationalising marksmanship training in line with that knowledge.
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
More...
It's more critical. Apparently, no one is having any luck moving either argument...Shock is at least as critical in handguns if not more and I still dont have a .45
Kaur: Purely anecdotally, the 7.62x39 is a better cartridge in vegetation than the 5.56x45; penetration and disabling varies. Both are IMO a little weak for a combat cartridge. The .30-06 is overkill and even the 7.62x45 is also a little more than is needed; the two most common are a little less than is desirable IMO. The various 6 - 6+ mm types may have some merit. No test is likely to prove that, combat has a way of overturning test results.
Fuchs: True but the scientific method founders on shooting people -- or even pigs whose body parts are quite close to human densities -- though we did do that in the Troop Test of the AR-25 back in the early 60s before the western world got excessively touchy feely.
Bob's World: Also true but typically, a person will pick one or the other and will then fight you if you tell him or her they bought a bad truck and the other is better. It all boils down in a sense to personal foibles, likes and dislike and what one is familiar with -- which does not make it unimportant...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks