Red tape.
OK let me help you here.Originally Posted by 82redleg
Lets assume that one of the M4s issued to one of your soldiers is really inaccurate. The first thing that will become apparent is that the soldier will appear to be unable to shoot at all accurately. So what are your options?
Same instructor/coach for a bunch of guys. So the instructor takes the weapon and shoots a few five round groups himself. He knows his ability and if it proves to be the weapon you arrange a swap out from the armoury. If it is not the weapon you get back to dealing with the soldier and coach him to improve.
The instructors test is the fall back position to confirm whether its the weapon or the soldier.
Now that was not so hard was it?
Red tape.
Yes
Plus time and the number of trainees vs. facility availability. But mostly red tape...
Red Tape: The bureaucratic inconvenience one must suffer (forms to be filled out and approved, etc.) in order to get action by an organization. Most often, the action is just permission to do something, and the organization is an agency of government.
None in combat.
My concern remains with the effect on peripheral vision. As does my concern about blocking out the hearing in one ear with a radio ear piece effect the soldiers situational awareness.
For the red dot and holographic sights, peripheral vision is a non-issue. These sights are designed to be used with both eyes open and have zero effect on peripheral vision. In fact, any modern combat optical sight up to 4 power can be used with both eyes open.
Modern ear muffs even come with electronic attenuators which can actually amplify tactical hearing while automatically protecting/cancelling sharp, ear damaging noises. No reason whatsoever a commo rig couldn't be equipped the same.
OK I'm talking about standard issue optical sights (as the Brits have) and whether the training is in fact conducted on on the basis of shooting with both eyes open.
Secondly when there is a free-for-all with regard to use of customising kit for weapons what training is carried out by the individual? Who supervises and quality controls this training on this customised weapon? Or is the individual soldier is allowed to do what he pleases and when he likes?
Yes that has been said before but as of now the Brits sacrifice the hearing of their left ear by using an external covering ear piece. I guess the reason why a non uncompetitive audio enhancing ear piece is not yet available to all is because the current crop of soldiers do not have the balls to tell the generals to either give them the proper stuff or to go shove it.Modern ear muffs even come with electronic attenuators which can actually amplify tactical hearing while automatically protecting/cancelling sharp, ear damaging noises. No reason whatsoever a commo rig couldn't be equipped the same.
Well, I'm talking about standard issue optical sights (as the Americans have). And, yes, training is supposed to be conducted on the basis of shooting with both eyes open. Unfortunately, sometimes training is lacking among US soldiers and their chain of command. Our local unit runs M68 CCOs mounted all the way to the rear by some ignorant armorer/commanders' policy, as if they were hunting scopes.
There is no "free for all". In high end units, soldiers are considered to be adult human beings and not cannon fodder to be trained to wipe their *ss. In lower end units, standardization rules the day, more or less.Secondly when there is a free-for-all with regard to use of customising kit for weapons what training is carried out by the individual? Who supervises and quality controls this training on this customised weapon? Or is the individual soldier is allowed to do what he pleases and when he likes?
Yes that has been said before but as of now the Brits sacrifice the hearing of their left ear by using an external covering ear piece. I guess the reason why a non uncompetitive audio enhancing ear piece is not yet available to all is because the current crop of soldiers do not have the balls to tell the generals to either give them the proper stuff or to go shove it.
Like.
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White
"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap
"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
Where training and control is lacking that is where the "posers" can come into their own. I am a little lost that there may be units out there somewhere which do not keep a tight grip on their training especially in wartime.
Well if you separate out the high-end units what about the fish-and-chip units?There is no "free for all". In high end units, soldiers are considered to be adult human beings and not cannon fodder to be trained to wipe their *ss. In lower end units, standardization rules the day, more or less.
OK so you are in a high end unit and one of your men comes up to you and says he wants to carry an AK from now on (fitted with all the bells and whistles). You would ask him how he arrived at that decision and can he provide a technical justification, yes? And you would expect him to have an intelligent and persuasive argument, yes? And the introduction of different ammo would not worry you at all?
JMA, diagnosing the rifle is easy. But if the rifle is in-spec, what are you going to do? #### another one?
Replacement barrels are not gauged for accuracy at all. Which means a replacement barrel could well be worse.
In order to change that one thing, you'd have to upset the whole system.
Which isn't to say that it ought not be done, just that it would be a difficult process.
I am more than a little surprised that so many seem to just accept an unacceptable situation.
I don't know what percentage of a battalions worth of M4s would be delinquent. But start off by issuing those (once identified) to the cooks/clerks/bottle washers, if there are still some more then start issuing them to the sons of generals and serving soldiers in descending order of rank.
If there are still more then invite the New York Times over for a range day and show them what you are having to put up l with in todays US military.
...then of course you could always leak the information to that crowd on the Internet (WikiLeaks).
PS: There would be a system for back-loading broken, damaged or beyond local repair rifles for base repair of replacement. Ask any Sergeant Major how to "arrange" that for you.
Standard assault rifles cost only about a week's pay nowadays. The detachable gadgets are the cost issue.
The procurement system and bean counters might someday understand this fact and begin to treat an assault rifle as what it is: Less costly than a single dumb artillery shell. There's no reason why assault rifles should not be treated like consumables and replaced in one to two decade cycles.
While Fuchs is correct that rifles are consumables, it remains the case that you have to tighten the standard in order to get an improvement.
There are, of course, ways to do that...
But it isn't at the NCO level. Nor at the JO level.
So until someone with a few stars on his chest wakes up angry and makes the change, it is what it is.
We can't get rid of magazines that don't work. Rifles? No way.
Amazing to see the "can do" nation giving up so easily on such an important matter. Sad really.
Why not consider inviting the good folks from Colt to a Christmas party and once they have all arrived at the venue you get some of the troopies to secure the exits, then have a little heart to heart chat with these people who probably count themselves as US patriots.
(only half serious)
First of all, it's the way the Army accounts for weapons. It's not Colt, or FN's "fault".
The only material defect rifles and carbines I have EVER seen have been contract rebuilt rifles.
Colt and FN deliver an outstanding carbine and rifle, respectively.
This is not "turning in Spenser carbines to get 1873 trapdoor Springfields", no matter what the pantie wetters like to say. There is not revolutionary or even significantly evolutionary "better gun" out there.
The so-called "better guns" are like the backup QB to a losing football team. They are only "better" because we haven't seen their large scale issues, yet.
You make yoyur point but I'm not sure how many will agree out there...
Colt lobbied the procurement bureaucracy to change a tiny bit in the M4 (I think it was a piece of plastic or metal in the lower) to improve the weapon at no additional cost - they lobbied for years and the procurement bureaucracy insisted on the old spec and design.
Colt isn't exactly a top-notch arms company, but they're certainly better than the bureaucracy.
Okay... I'll bite. How does Colt fail, as a top-notch arms company? I'm not a Colt defender by any means, but am interested in what objective data is out there to support this.
Lack of evidence for superior marketing skill (as FNH and HK have), superior production efficiency or intellectual property for some superior product - they're large thanks to their huge home market and they're mediocre.
They're not innovative either, even the old copycats of ST Kinetics are now more innovative.
Colt Defence's military & laws enforcement product range is basically the AR-15 system, the AR-15 system and three times again the AR-15 system. Several variations of a half century-old product.
There's nothing special about modern Colt at all.
If I had to give a military small arms development contract to a company, I'd easily prefer companies from South Africa, Singapore, Israel and even Russia over Colt.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks