So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?
Good question, JMA. The 77 grain was made specifically for the SPR. It's too hot of a round to put through a M4 or M16. You risk damage to the weapon and injury to the firer. It's the same problem as using match 7.62x51 ammo intended for sniper rifles in an M240B MG. Match ammo is hotter. A couple of years ago some guys from one of the SF groups were trying to get rid of fiscal year ammo and linked up a bunch of match 7.62 and started firing it through an M240B. The gun blew up and injured two men. MGs and rifles are designed to have specific types of ammo put through them. Going outside these specifications can lead to bad things. Another example is taking a 40mm grenade made for a Mk-19 and putting it into an M203 or M79. Not good.
May I suggest that you consider adding the "Dead and Alive Shoot" to the Drake Shoot training.
Simply, on a field firing range you have a section/squad approach a second squad who are positioned in a firing position/trench line/whatever. At the moment the "defending" squad leader would order his men to open fire give the advancing squad the order to "take cover". They take cover and you turn the "defending" squad around to as not to see the next step.
A
figure 12 target is then positioned at each point where an advancing squad member has taken cover. The advancing squad are then withdrawn behind the firing point to watch. The "defending" squad are then turned around and conduct a Drake/Cover shoot into the area where the advancing squad took cover.
The "advancing" squad are then taken by instructors/platoon NCOs to their positions to see if they came out of the contact "Dead or Alive". Remedial training can be conducted then and there.
Once completed swap the squads around. The squad with the most "dead" pay for the first round in the canteen later.
The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.
I haven't heard of that training being done. Good stuff. The most difficult thing about training the Drake Shoots is finding a range to do it on!! Almost all ranges are cleared out open areas with long fields of fire. To train Drake Shoots, you must ask your Range Control Office to get you a range with lots of trees, bushes, and other cover and concealment to hide the targets. With proper application of Drake Shoots, your unit will achieve 100% hits on the targets without being able to see the targets! Trust me, it works!!
I've watched YouTube videos and such where the US soldiers were firing back at Taliban attacks and complaining they can't see their enemy to fire accurately. Drake Shoots actually eliminates the necessity of seeing your enemy to hit him. Instead, you aim at his likely locations for cover and concealment.
I have said this before and will say it again... that before anyone starts to consider compromising on the type of weapons and the amount of ammo carried because of weight considerations look elsewhere to see where weight can be shed from the infantryman's burden.
It is interesting to note that the Brits are finally coming to the realisation that the additional weight being carried by soldiers nowadays is having serious negative side effects.
Now many of these patrols are a few thousand metres long and probably don't move beyond the range of indirect supporting weapons (which they should have) in their base of origin. So why carry all the kit?
I have never been a believer in always wearing Level IV body armor. It's ridiculous. Commanders enforce it for the purpose of reducing their own blame if a soldier gets killed. Yes, that Level IV has saved several soldiers lives by stopping a 7.62 round, but every incident I have personal knowledge of the round struck in an unarmored area of the body. I personally believe only Level II should be worn to protect from shrapnel - the biggest killer. Only in door-kicking CQB situations where enemy contact is likely should soldiers slide in their plates.
Being a sniper myself, I and my team mates would investigate sniper incidents in our area in Diyala Province, Iraq. We would locate the unit that was there and interview them on what happened. We found some interesting similarities in all the attacks:
1. The shot was never heard by any friendly forces. This indicates good sniper TTP of setting back inside a room.
2. The bullet never hit an armored part of the body. Usually the side of the soldier.
3. The range of the shot was always less than 200 meters - usually around 100 meters.
4. The sniper never took more than two shots then withdrew. If he got a first time hit, then only one shot was fired. Good sniper discipline.
5. Sniper attacks ALWAYS occurred during a MOUT clearing operation approximately one hour into the operation. This means the sniper team was called into the area by his HQ after hearing CF were operating in an area. An hour into the operation, all buildings are cleared and secured and people are starting to "relax" a little.
6. Sniper attacks ALWAYS occurred when the supporting Air Weapons Team (AH-64s or OH-58Ds) had left station to refuel (guess what - that's about an hour into an operation!). They greatly feared attack helos.
7. The snipers targeted the soldiers who looked like they are in charge. This was usually the officer or senior NCO who is standing around in the open.
8. Sniper aim wasn't that good. "Sniper" is a misnomer. It was more like some guy who could use a site fairly well and hit a person at about 100 meters. Additionally, reporting it as a "sniper" has a negative affect on soldier morale. It induces fear that is probably injustified.
Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?
MG teams in the platoon aren't always available to direct support a squad.
Good to see someone out there is looking for
"the answer". You are in the minority as too many these days just seem to not only to go with the flow but when questioned aggressively defend the status quo.
Originally Posted by Demon Fox
So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?
Bookmarks