MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[Entropy]

soldiers die as a result of these decisions... and very few people seem to care.

Considering that debate about the 5.56, M-16 and M-4 have been around for a long time, the notion that "very few people seem to care" is a dubious one at best. Disagreement with you is not the same thing as not caring.

[JMA]

Wonder how the SA army have been getting along with 5.56 for the last 20 or so years.

Or with the R4 and R5, which have been derived from the Israeli Galil. Strangely, the Israelis seem to prefer the M4 over the Galil.

I was there in the early 80s when the change from R1 (FN) to R4 (Galil) took place.

----------------------R1--------------R4
Length:................1.053m...............1.005m
Weight -empty:......4.31kg................4.3kg
Weight - loaded:.....5.06kg................5.1kg
........................ (20rd mag)..........(35rd mag)
source R1 source R4

Then the Brit L85 Rifle weighs 4.98 kg (11.0 lb) (L85A1 with SUSAT sight and loaded 30 round magazine) - much the same - source L85 -

Only the peashooter (M4) brings relief to the tired arms of the junk-food generation - 6.9 lb (3.1 kg) with 30 rounds - add some for all the poser stuff attached of course.

So (other than for the M4) it all comes down to the weight of ammo and the trade off between this reduction in weight and weakened ballistic performance.

The first batch of R4s were a disaster (apparently an engineering fault relating to metal characteristics). Improved later. As said its all about the ammo.

Does anyone out there really want to try and sell the ammo as a reason to have changed then?

[JMA]

Considering that debate about the 5.56, M-16 and M-4 have been around for a long time, the notion that "very few people seem to care" is a dubious one at best. Disagreement with you is not the same thing as not caring.

The bad procurement decisions made by all armies are characterized by the passive acceptance of soldiers victims... and don't anyone dare rock the boat! Its all very sad.

[Steve Blair]

The bad procurement decisions made by all armies are characterized by the passive acceptance of soldiers victims... and don't anyone dare rock the boat! Its all very sad.

By a "long time", Entropy means about 30+ years! 5.56 entered major US use in about 1965, and the weapon that reappeared as the M-4 came into service in about 1966-67. "Back in the day" the XM-177E2 (also known as the CAR-15) was favored by SOG teams, who weren't exactly fresh off the boat or basic training. They used full auto only when breaking contact, and preferred aimed fire when at all possible. Their basic load was also about 200-300 rounds. Wilf has some details on this stuff as well. That weapon was the direct ancestor of the M-4. And you can bet that 5.56 vs. 7.62 was hotly debated in the pages of American Rifleman and elsewhere during those days. I don't think anyone's about to change just because you suddenly "discovered" the debate and decided to make something of it.

I'd say you need to find a new donkey to ride...this one's about out of steam.

[Rex Brynen]

I'd say you need to find a new donkey to ride...this one's about out of steam.

Frankly, I'm impressed that JMA manages to post so often if he's really riding one of these:

[Entropy]

Rex, you are priceless!

[William F. Owen]

"Back in the day" the XM-177E2 (also known as the CAR-15) was favored by SOG teams, who weren't exactly fresh off the boat or basic training. They used full auto only when breaking contact, and preferred aimed fire when at all possible. Their basic load was also about 200-300 rounds. Wilf has some details on this stuff as well.

In SOG (and I can only speak for the men I interviewed of which at least 14 or 15 were One-Zeros) the XM-177E2 (CAR-15) was usually prized over the AK-47 and M-14. I only know one-team that ran "all-AK", and that was because they were all dressed as NVA !!!??.
Every team also carried at least 1 x M-79.
Some teams carried some cut-down RPDs, but not as many as myth suggests.
Heavy Teams and Hatchet Force Platoons carried some M-60's and RPG-2/B-40s.

Basic Ammo load was usually 20 x 20 round mags with a 30 round mag on the weapon. IIRC, 30 rounders were very rare, well into 1970, and a lot of the old-timers didn't trust them. 4 FRAG and 2 x WP seems to have been standard.

Of note: Most of SOG guys found the CAR-15 reliable enough. A great many of them suggested that, by 1968/69 the real problem was poorly maintained and worn out magazines. Test firing all your mags was something they seemed to take seriously.

[Steve Blair]

In SOG (and I can only speak for the men I interviewed of which at least 14 or 15 were One-Zeros) the XM-177E2 (CAR-15) was usually prized over the AK-47 and M-14. I only know one-team that ran "all-AK", and that was because they were all dressed as NVA !!!??.
Every team also carried at least 1 x M-79.
Some teams carried some cut-down RPDs, but not as many as myth suggests.
Heavy Teams and Hatchet Force Platoons carried some M-60's and RPG-2/B-40s.

Basic Ammo load was usually 20 x 20 round mags with a 30 round mag on the weapon. IIRC, 30 rounders were very rare, well into 1970, and a lot of the old-timers didn't trust them. 4 FRAG and 2 x WP seems to have been standard.

Of note: Most of SOG guys found the CAR-15 reliable enough. A great many of them suggested that, by 1968/69 the real problem was poorly maintained and worn out magazines. Test firing all your mags was something they seemed to take seriously.

That lines up with my research as well. The biggest knock against the magazines was that they had weak springs. Even the 20-round versions were often loaded with only 18 to prevent jams.

[Ken White]

Whats wrong with the RPD beyond range and stopping power issues?

Umm, nothing but those two shortfalls are killers and as you also said:

- soldiers die as a result of these decisions... and very few people seem to care.

Yes -- and you don't care about the RPD's shortfalls? Shocking!

You also asked a very appropriate and sensible question:

...Maybe this military procurement process is equally stupid across all nations... or equally corrupt?

Mostly stupid but a tiny bit of corruption is entailed on occasion. Read the quote from Major Chaz Bowser in the article you linked on the M4 (your Post 438). He correctly cites the inertia, procurement processes and politics as the culprit behind said stupidity. The senior officers you lambaste often are captives of the system in which they have to work.

The bad procurement decisions made by all armies are characterized by the passive acceptance of soldiers victims... and don't anyone dare rock the boat! Its all very sad.

I don't think that's correct. Certainly it applies in some cases but in the majority flawed people -- we all are that -- do the best they can in the system in which they operate to get things as right as they can make them.

You have strong opinions, your prerogative -- but you often seem to forget they are only opinions and not the gospel. This is a good example:

... Would have thought they would have learned from the stupidity of NATO mixing 5.56 and 7.62

You haven't had that mix in combat but to many of us who have, it is not the problem you seem to think (and you forgot the 40mm ) -- just as the M4 which many of us have used quite successfully in combat isn't nearly as flawed as you seem to think. Or wish to think...

[JMA]

Our Fuchs posted an article on his blog on the issue, Modern small arms calibers is a good read and an intelligent contribution to the calibre debate:

Let's compare 7.62NATO battle rifles in contrast to 5.56NATO examples.

Pro 7.62NATO:
- better range
- better cover penetration
- better armor penetration
- better wound ballistics
Contra 7.62 NATO:
- heavier weapon
- fewer cartridges for same ammunition weight/volume
- a bit less controllable on full automatic fire

(designs with shoulder stock and barrel in one line like SCAR-H should be much more controllable than the older G3 and FAL designs). Such straight designs need a sight line high above the barrel - that's ideally suited to the modern rifle sights, but it was a drawback at the time of iron sights.

[JMA]

A great many of them suggested that, by 1968/69 the real problem was poorly maintained and worn out magazines. Test firing all your mags was something they seemed to take seriously.

The Rhodesian ops rotation of 6 weeks on ops followed by 10 days R&R allowed for the magazines to be emptied over the R&R period to allow the springs to rest. (The lesson of not doing this and the subsequent stoppages was learned from the Border Control days of mid 60s)

How one deals with this over a six month or longer tour I can only guess but something a good company sergeant major and his platoon sergeants would be able sort out without missing a beat.

From the supply of magazines side there did not seem to be a problem as in the early 70's I remember carrying 50 rounds in clips in a bandoleer then we gave that nonsense up and just issued more magazines.

[82redleg]

allowed for the magazines to be emptied over the R&R period to allow the springs to rest.

This may be a function of modern metallurgy and improved springs that weren't available 40 years ago, but I understand that the problem is leaving magazines compressed (loaded), but the cycling of the the spring (by loading/unloading).

Anecdotally, I found a couple of magazines in our office hootch that had been loaded by the unit that we replaced, and had sat for at least 11 months (we'd been there that long- I don't know how long they were left loaded before that). I took them to the range, and they all functioned flawlessly. These were recent manufacture, GI magazines with the green followers. Following the discussions on some gun boards, it seems that PMAGs are even better than GI, but I only have 3 PMAGs, and haven't run them yet.

[jcustis]

The Rhodesian ops rotation of 6 weeks on ops followed by 10 days R&R allowed for the magazines to be emptied over the R&R period to allow the springs to rest. (The lesson of not doing this and the subsequent stoppages was learned from the Border Control days of mid 60s)

How one deals with this over a six month or longer tour I can only guess but something a good company sergeant major and his platoon sergeants would be able sort out without missing a beat.

I don't know if the metallurgy of the 70s-80s differs much from today, but springs do not need to "rest". The act of a spring compressing and expanding is what "weakens" it.

Magazines should be downloaded to clean the magazine body, the rounds, and the follower/spring combination. The springs should not be touched or stretched in any way.

Grime most likely caused those magazine malfunctions, but the springs are usually made the culprit.

I could take any one of my Magpul magazines, and after 7 months of continuous storage, fire one off without issues. Now, the Magpul PMAG is a superior design over the standard issue, but the rule about springs remains the same.

ETA: Jinx! Yeah, 82redleg captured the point nicely. Good to see that commonsense transcends services these days.

[Fuchs]

I remember an anecdote but cannot vouch for its correctness:

Someon found an old MP 38/40 (German WW2 submachinegun, sometimes criticised for poor magazine springs) in an attic, took it and tested it in the open. It fire all thirty rounds in full auto.

(OK, this was just an entertainment contribution, I'm really not sure if the story is real.)

[Kiwigrunt]

This underloading mags by two or so rounds has been staple diet for over six decades now. Bren gunners used to do it during WWII.

What I just can’t get my head around, from a manufacturers point of view, is why they don’t just make the mags a bit longer so they can theoretically hold two extra rounds, and restrict the movement of the follower so as not to allow those two rounds.

From a consumers perspective, if I am sold a 30 round mag, I’d want to be able to load it with 30 rounds.

There, my totally useless contribution to the thread.

[jcustis]

No, not useless at all. You already know this I'm sure, but it's good for casual observers of this thread to understand the dynamics.

There are some magazines that are designed (the PMAG of course comes to mind) from the ground up to be "true 30-rounders", in that they can be loaded into a magazine well and under a closed bolt without issues.

The problem with a GI-issue magazine is that when you load it to 30 rounds, it is more difficult for it to seat completely under that closed bolt, as in a tactical reload.

[Fuchs]

It's usually not about the magazine length but about the spring.


Btw, some magazines such as the disc magazine of the DPM were underloaded because of an entirely different reason; pressing the last two cartridges in was too difficult because of all the cartridge-magazine friction involved.

[JMA]

This may be a function of modern metallurgy and improved springs that weren't available 40 years ago, but I understand that the problem is leaving magazines compressed (loaded), but the cycling of the the spring (by loading/unloading).

I would suggest that it is the change in the manufacture over 40 years.

My sgt would get the magazines emptied, the rounds individually wiped down and the magazines stripped and "washed" out. When he found springs that would not return to their standard full uncompressed length he would toss them or stretch them. Such diligent maintenance under the beady eye of a troop sgt saves lives. So I am happy that at the time there was an issue with the spring.

Normal field cleaning, gas on "3", good magazine maintenance and never had a stoppage... ever. (That was the FN)

Good to see that it is no longer a problem today.

PS: Probably a good thing the militaries have moved on to low recoil weapons as the kick from an FN on a gas setting of 3 would probably lead to multiple shoulder dislocations among our modern warriors

[JMA]

It's usually not about the magazine length but about the spring.

Btw, some magazines such as the disc magazine of the DPM were underloaded because of an entirely different reason; pressing the last two cartridges in was too difficult because of all the cartridge-magazine friction involved.

Yes, I remember that the training when using 30 magazines on the Bren Gun was to rectify feeding difficulties a stretch of the magazine spring was required to overcome the increased friction and number of rounds (even though gravity asisted in this case).

[JMA]

What I just can’t get my head around, from a manufacturers point of view, is why they don’t just make the mags a bit longer so they can theoretically hold two extra rounds, and restrict the movement of the follower so as not to allow those two rounds.

Fuchs has raised it before. These long magazines on rifles (certainly the 50 round) interfere with the normal prone firing position and lead to a higher profile/silhouette of the firer which against a half decent enemy would be the kiss of death.