MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[Ken White]

When I refer to round counters I am talking about accelerometers for determining service intervals, not for the purpose of maintaining a loaded weapon.

However I was talking about the round count that really mattered, not one that would add totally unnecessary complexity to a weapon that in combat will not last long enough for the round counter to have served any useful purpose. Metallurgical and mechanical science are adequate to design and manufacture parts designed to provide x rounds of service life but that doesn't mean one has to use that for a criteria.

In fact, I'd argue against such a criteria because it will simply encourage the bean counters to become round counters and retain weapons in the inventory past their sell-by date...

Aside from the problem of personnel turnover and its impact on who has what weapon and what a particular weapon might see in the way of use, most combat weapons will be physically harmed by all sorts of accidents and combat action to the point they require rebuild or disposal long before any total rounds fired count will serve a purpose. Many would not believe how blood and tissue can foul a weapon -- or what dropping to the prone can do to plastic furniture. Or opening ration or Ammo cases can do to excessively light barrels with unnecessary cuts, channels and chamfers. Forgetting weapon limitations and trying a butt stroke instead of a muzzle strike can ruin your day. Firing the weapon with thick mud or snow in the barrel can provide interesting effects as does a week in the Monsoon...

Grenade or shell fragments embedded can provide a little artistry, though...

Service intervals should be simply 'clean it if it's dirty, replace parts that break, buy a new one every two years of combat and / or ten years of peace (pro rated) and do not waste time, effort and money trying to do more -- or less.'

Armies in peacetime revere complexity because it makes them look all knowing, 'professional' and technologically current. In wartime, KISS rules. There's a reason for that and I, for one, do not see that changing much in your lifetime.

[Pete]

It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip. It goes without saying that a reverse-engineered product with design modifications would introduce new bugs that would have to be ironed out.

In reference to bayonet lugs, I believe it was the Infantry School and not Ordnance who insisted on that. The Type 3 barrel band for the M1 Carbine with the bayonet lug wasn't produced untl 1945. I have an original Inland carbine from December 1943 that has the Inland "I" on all of its parts. It's in factory-new condition. The main problem with collector-grade guns is that you don't want to shoot them -- I'll don't want to break my carbine's extractor firing crappy Wolf ammo.

[Rifleman]

It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip.

I think the 6.8 is about .277. It would have been interesting in 1946 but why do you want it in a Garand with a box magazine today?

I can see wanting the caliber but I'd rather have it in an M16-type rifle with a gas piston and operating rod. In other words, the HK416.

[Pete]

Just curious -- it wouldn't be for military use.

[SethB]

I think the 6.8 is about .277. It would have been interesting in 1946 but why do you want it in a Garand with a box magazine today?

I can see wanting the caliber but I'd rather have it in an M16-type rifle with a gas piston and operating rod. In other words, the HK416.

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

A better solution is to move the gas port farther away from the chamber.

[Ken White]

..In reference to bayonet lugs, I believe it was the Infantry School and not Ordnance who insisted on that...

TIS has a bayonet on their patch.

If Bunker Four had their way, we'd still wear tricorns and use these (LINK).

It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip. It goes without saying that a reverse-engineered product with design modifications would introduce new bugs that would have to be ironed out.

Talk to Beretta, bet they have a bunch of these they'd like to move (LINK). Bugs already worked out, rebarrel and a new bolt and you're good to go.

Though that .276 is OBE due to metallurgical, chemical and manufacturing improvements.

[Pete]

Many would not believe ... what dropping to the prone can do to plastic furniture.

Army manuals from before World War II were explicit about the need to slide the right hand from the small of the stock to the butt of the stock when assuming the prone position. The manuals included step-by-step sketches or photos showing how to do it, and that was in the days of walnut stocks.

[Fuchs]

There are thousands of "plastics", and the new stuff isn't the same as 1970's stuff.

It's therefore quite pointless to talk about "plastic" as if it was a single kind of material. It's even less descriptive than "steel".

[SethB]

The the Marine Corps Marksmanship team and Lt. Col. Lutz designed the M16A2 they switched plastics to something that was about 1,000% stronger, making stock strength a non issue.

The M4 sometimes breaks during IMT, but that is the aluminum receiver extension or the receiver itself that usually fails.

[Ken White]

Army manuals from before World War II were explicit about the need to slide the right hand from the small of the stock to the butt of the stock when assuming the prone position. The manuals included step-by-step sketches or photos showing how to do it, and that was in the days of walnut stocks.

However and as is often true, what the manual shows and what Joe does are often quite different. As I said above, we don't train well -- we teach a lot but we don't train. We don't because it's tedious to do it to build the necessary muscle memory and most trainers are too lazy to spend the time and effort required.

Incidentally, that technique is one reason the M1 stock is much thicker at the small than was the 03 or even the 03A1. It worked with the M14, did not work with the M16 and couldn't work with the adjustable stocks.

The Micarta stock on a BAR would take it though it got chewed up on gravel in the process. It flat did not work with the M1A1 Carbine...

[120mm]

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

A better solution is to move the gas port farther away from the chamber.

Ding, ding, ding.

But unfortunately, this doesn't pee away several million dollars and keep the development wonks employed.

While I'm on, here is some cool video of the M4A1 shoot to destruction test:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...ring-test.html

It's interesting to note that once the melted gas tube was replaced, the M4 functioned just fine with good accuracy. The gas tube fails at 911 rounds, btw.

And here's an oldie but a goodie when the old farts start waxing about what an awesome, infallible and perfect gun the M1 and M14 were.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4292-2,00.html

When first introduced, the Garand was commonly known as "That Mickey Mouse Piece of Sh*t". But later, a General Officer who really never used one declared it to be the "Greatest battle implement ever devised."

Here is a bit about M4 reliability for a guy who shoots, and trains shooters for a living:

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big...m4-unreliable/

And of course, there is the story of "Dirty 14" the M4 carbine that has currently gone 39,000 rounds and counting without cleaning by Pat Rogers of EAG.

One other problem with comparing the M4 system to other historic small arms, is that never before have soldiers and police forces built up such insane round counts in training. Because of this, we know more now about what makes guns go (or not go) than ever before. Plus, training is different now than it was then. No-one took an M14 to a 360 degree firing range and shot 2000 rounds in two days, combined with rough handling.

Gun failures in the past, when they happened, mostly occured in combat situations where a detailed study of why and how was not really practical. The KD range just didn't expose a gun's weaknesses.

BTW, there are a bunch of M14s in theater. Most of which are lying broken in an arms room, gathering dust. Partially, it's because of lack of parts, but also because they are relatively fragile and unreliable.

[Ken White]

...
One other problem with comparing the M4 system to other historic small arms, is that never before have soldiers and police forces built up such insane round counts in training. Because of this, we know more now about what makes guns go (or not go) than ever before. Plus, training is different now than it was then. No-one took an M14 to a 360 degree firing range and shot 2000 rounds in two days, combined with rough handling.

this (from your TIME link) sort of disputes that last item:

""
• One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On overall efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage. (emphasis added /kw) ""

Admittedly, there's a difference between tests and heavy firing in training by some organizations. Problem is Joe rarely gets to fire as much as those organizations do.

Partially, it's because of lack of parts, but also because they are relatively fragile and unreliable.

Or it could be due to a lack of parts and being unreliable because very few if any there today know how to check, gauge and fix minor ills...

Not that I'm denying the fragility part, neither the M14 or the M16 / M4 get any applause in that area.

Last time my son was there, he carried one similar to that shown below which he used 'til he left (that Texas Guardsman in the pic is not him...). No problems. He's doing different stuff this time so he has an M4 as he did on the first tour. He's comfortable with either. Whatever works...

As for the M4, no question it's very reliable in well trained hands. So was the M14. However, in the hands of Joe, both were and are merely adequately reliable, a somewhat lower plateau. Again, whatever works...

[Rifleman]

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

How so? I'm not saying it isn't true but it's contrary to what I've read elsewhere about rifles like the HK416 and AR18. What am I not understanding?

[SethB]

Pistons aren't a miracle cure. They are not at all great when added to rifles that weren't designed to support them.

In an M4, the gas expanding in the aptly titled expansion chamber pushes the bolt forward, reducing strain on the lugs. Also, the carrier moves straight to the rear. In a piston system, the rear of the carrier needs a system to keep the rear of the carrier from tilting down. So a piston actually causes premature wear on an AR pattern rifle.

Further, the HK416 runs very high carrier speeds. That is part of where it gets its reliability from. If we wanted to do that with an M4 we could run 1100 RPM from PMAGs without much issue, except the weapon would wear out faster. Running that on GI mags won't work out quite as well.

For what it is worth, Larry Vickers (the US face of the HK416 when it was developed) doesn't think that the system is necessary with barrels over 10.5 inches.

Meanwhile KAC and VLTOR have developed new buffer and gas system designs that slow cycling while adding mass to the carrier. You can now get a collapsible stock and buffer combination that reduces cyclic rate by 100 RPMs while increasing reliability. It uses weight to slow unlocking, increase forward momentum on the return stroke and prevent bolt bounce. It uses an A2 spring which increases smoothness.

There are lots of ways to go about making a more reliable rifle. A piston is the last one that ought to be tried.



Using a gas port located further from the barrel reduces cyclic rate, port pressure, unlocking speed, eases extraction, makes feeding easier and reduces gas port erosion.

Second picture removed because it was gigantic.

[120mm]

this (from your TIME link) sort of disputes that last item:

""
• One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On overall efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage. (emphasis added /kw) ""

Admittedly, there's a difference between tests and heavy firing in training by some organizations. Problem is Joe rarely gets to fire as much as those organizations do.Or it could be due to a lack of parts and being unreliable because very few if any there today know how to check, gauge and fix minor ills...

Not that I'm denying the fragility part, neither the M14 or the M16 / M4 get any applause in that area.

I am merely asserting that the M16/M4 is far superior to the so-called "fragility" ascribed to it by mythology, and the M1/M14 are far less than the lightning bolts of Zeus mythology attributes to them.

Last time my son was there, he carried one similar to that shown below which he used 'til he left (that Texas Guardsman in the pic is not him...). No problems. He's doing different stuff this time so he has an M4 as he did on the first tour. He's comfortable with either. Whatever works...

As for the M4, no question it's very reliable in well trained hands. So was the M14. However, in the hands of Joe, both were and are merely adequately reliable, a somewhat lower plateau. Again, whatever works...

I would suggest that the state of the art in small arms is pretty much dominated by the M4. And that any "improvements" on the system are at best incremental at great cost, or are a trade off, again at great cost in capability or specialization.

While there are a lot of so-called "improvements" on paper, none to date really pan out, and the latest bunch (SCAR, ACR, XCR) offer identical performance for added complexity, size and weight. None of which are worth the pain, imo.

[Ken White]

I am merely asserting that the M16/M4 is far superior to the so-called "fragility" ascribed to it by mythology, and the M1/M14 are far less than the lightning bolts of Zeus mythology attributes to them.

I agreed with that when you said it earlier. I said then re: the M14: ""... It was not a great weapon on several counts but I do not nor do I know of anyone who awards it 'a halo of perfection.' It was a tool, it was adequate, no more. The FAL would have been a better choice -- though it also had some problems...""

I would suggest that the state of the art in small arms is pretty much dominated by the M4. And that any "improvements" on the system are at best incremental at great cost, or are a trade off, again at great cost in capability or specialization.

While there are a lot of so-called "improvements" on paper, none to date really pan out, and the latest bunch (SCAR, ACR, XCR) offer identical performance for added complexity, size and weight. None of which are worth the pain, imo.

Seth B also said pretty much the same thing about the M4:

""I'd say that you'd have a hell of a time finding a better rifle COTS, and if you further developed it (as the DoD has refused to do for many years) you can improve on what already exists.""

I agreed, saying ""It's adequate, there are better rifles out there but they are not mo' better to the point that the cost of change is justified...Changing the cartridge is far easier and there's no excuse for not having done that...Disabling the full auto capability would help save money and provide an incentive to shoot better...""

Seth B:

In response to my earlier question: ""Remind me again why the M1 and follow on Carbines are not still issued..."" You repied:

I would assume that a large part of that is because we have lighter, smaller weapons with three times the range close at hand already. But I'd like to hear what your experience was.

Not at all. The M1 Carbine was a major issue item, an early PDW if you will, in the Army and Marines during and after WW II. Until Korea. What had been discovered in Europe in WW II but conveniently forgotten to save money, postwar, was that the round had inadequate stopping power. It had great difficulty penetrating heavy winter clothing -- wouldn't, in fact. That was rediscovered in Korea and lack of censorship there, as opposed to the coverup in WW II, allowed reporters there to get the word back to CONUS causing Congress to go into an apoplectic state. The Carbines were quickly retired in both services and replaced with M1s. The M1 Carbine thus disappeared from the active component scene in 1951-52, long before any lighter smaller weapons with three times the range were even on the drawing board much less at hand. The weapon was okay, not great, okay (the short stroke piston flaw...) -- but the cartridge was not an adequate man stopper.

The hot little round for a light PDW concept is okay for highly trained specialists who need light and handy. It does not work well for masses of Joes with marginal training.

The best weapon is a prisoner to its ammo. If the ammo sucks, the weapon will also. That is a significant cause of the checkered reputation of the M4. Conversely, the more assured stopping power -- not great, just far better than the 5.56 -- of the 7.62x51 gives the M14 "a halo" -- according to 120mm -- that we all agree isn't deserved.

[120mm]

The best weapon is a prisoner to its ammo. If the ammo sucks, the weapon will also. That is a significant cause of the checkered reputation of the M4. Conversely, the more assured stopping power -- not great, just far better than the 5.56 -- of the 7.62x51 gives the M14 "a halo" -- according to 120mm -- that we all agree isn't deserved.

The world would be a much better place if the phrase "stopping power" were banned forthwith. Stopping power doesn't come close to being an accurate depiction of what projectile weapons do to human beings in reality.

7.62 is not that much better than 5.56. Esp. when you look at the M80 ball in comparison with the newer, heavier versions of 5.56. It's not a fair comparison, because if you modernized 7.62 to the extent 5.56 has been developed, it'd be better, also.

The problem with 5.56 lethality is also a product of some suspect anecdotal evidence. "But Sarge, he soaked up 17 solid hits and kept running as fast as Jesse Owens" most likely was "Sarge, I suck at shooting, so I missed him 17 times."

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place. Personally, I like the shooting characteristics of 5.56, and feels it does an adequate job of killing bad guys.

Also, a point I made earlier, the M4 fits in very nicely with the current system of fighting.

[Rifleman]

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place.

More GPMGs at platoon level? I don't see how they could be pushed down lower than that, since we have two LMGs per squad now.

[Ken White]

The world would be a much better place if the phrase "stopping power" were banned forthwith. Stopping power doesn't come close to being an accurate depiction of what projectile weapons do to human beings in reality.

It's meant to portray the effect on the guy who's trying to stop you. The technical and physiological aspects drill down to insignificance next to that.

7.62 is not that much better than 5.56...it'd be better, also.

If you meant that the physical tissue movement effect on the body of 5.56 and that of 7.62 were little different, that would be correct. If you meant the stopping power of a pill of 55-70 gr with a nominal energy of about 1,300 ft lbs is the take down equivalent of a 150 to 174 gr bullet with a nominal energy of about twice that, then nope.

The problem with 5.56 lethality is also a product of some suspect anecdotal evidence..."Sarge, I suck at shooting, so I missed him 17 times."

Of course it is. He sucked at shooting because no one trained him to not suck at shooting. Thus I note that your suggestion:

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place. Personally, I like the shooting characteristics of 5.56, and feels it does an adequate job of killing bad guys.

suggests substituting technology and quantity over improving quality. So we can disagree on that. Not least because GPMGs spew out a lot of rounds that hit nothing and stop no one and the logistical burden already makes current usage techniques questionable. I'd go the other way, consolidate all of 'em at Co level in an MG Platoon --as the Marines and many other Armies do. There are a lot myths about what goes on in combat, no question. All wars differ. Sometimes Artillery is the best killer around, sometimes not. Sometimes MGs are in charge, sometimes not.

The issue of individual infantry weapons has little to do with who or what is in charge or more devastating, it is simply what weapon gives the Infantryman the best chance of surviving and doing his job -- that simply because when all else fails, the Arty runs out of ammo, shifts priority of fires or engages in 3,200 mil deflection errors; when the GPMG fails to feed due to debris in the belt or there are no more belts, he's still out there and he needs an ultra reliable weapon that will take a lot of abuse and that will stop bad guys.

Also, a point I made earlier, the M4 fits in very nicely with the current system of fighting.

I could comment on that but I won't. I know I'm a dinosaur -- I just hope you younger ladies and gentlemen versed in the current system of fighting don't have to fight any other Dinosaurs without a significant degree of prep time. That, BTW, is no snark but true concern and a sincere and honest wish for the future.

[Fuchs]

Ken, energy as measure for bullet effectiveness against a human being is quite thoroughly debunked. It should simply not be moved in such discussions.

If any energy measure, we would have to look only at the energy transferred into the body anyway, for both cartridges do usually penetrate fully and thus retain much of their kinetic energy. Even that would be not even close to good, for the deformation of the bullet (damage done to the bullet, not to the body) is substantial, too.