The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Demon Fox]

Every squad needs designated marksmen. Many, if not most, of the engagements in AF are 200m or less. The typical SOP is for the squad leader to call in a HIMARS, JDAM, or Excalibur to take out one or two enemy riflemen. They get the bad guy, but find dead women and children at the impact site as well. These situations could be resolved with a rifleman and a bit of good aim. At 200m, that's a head shot even with an M4 - especially with the ACOGS sites most soldiers use these days!

SPRs combined with the 77 grain 5.56 match round makes a good sniper rifle. My team was training at the High-Angle Sniper Course in Hawthorne, NV a few years ago. We had one SPR, and its owner consistently hit targets out to 1,000 meters in very heavy winds. He even started plinking at 9mm targets on the other side of the valley, which had to have been at least 1,300 meters away. The Marine instructors weren't too happy to find the 5.56 rounds burned holes through the steel 9mm targets even at that range! :-D So, for anyone wondering about the capabilities of a 5.56 round - there you go.

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight. You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad, so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

[JMA]

Welcome Demon Fox,

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

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.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight.

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.

We’re getting to a point where we are losing as many men making mistakes because they are exhausted from carrying armour (and the things that go with it) than are saved by it. - from Donkeys led by Lions - The British Army Review Number 150

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?

You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad,...

Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?

... so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

That's part of the reason why I'll never be a good trainer at anything, I guess.
I take too much for self-evident and not in need of a demonstration.

[JMA]

That's part of the reason why I'll never be a good trainer at anything, I guess.
I take too much for self-evident and not in need of a demonstration.

Well I hope you realised that back when you were serving

My experience is that the average 18 year old infantry trainee is generally not rocket scientist material and if he has the smarts at 18 his mind is on other things

So that is why a regime of demonstration, explanation, imitation where the seemingly obvious is stated and thereafter repetition, repetition, repetition... until it becomes second nature is an absolute necessity. The right people to carry out this training are hard to find and once found should be looked after like the crown jewels.

[Demon Fox]

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.[/QUOTE]


Thanks,

v/r

DF

[Demon Fox]

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.

Thanks,

v/r

DF[/QUOTE]

[Demon Fox]

Hey, how the heck do you get those blue quote boxes from other people's input?

v/r

DF

[Fuchs]

press the "quote" button

[SethB]

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

It was designed for the SAW and adopted because it could penetrate a helmet.

The 77 grain was made specifically for the SPR.

No. It was made specifically for the AMU. It was taken to Afghanistan as a stopgap round in 2001. The design was later changed.

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.

No, you don't. Besides, the M4/M16 are essentially the same in every way. You want to show me some documentation.

It's the same problem as using match 7.62x51 ammo intended for sniper rifles in an M240B MG. Match ammo is hotter.

No. 7.62x51 has pressure limits.

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.

I rolled my eyes on this one. I really did.

Who are you? You haven't filled out a profile, nor have you introduced yourself.

[Demon Fox]

Well, now that I'm aware there is a profile page, I'll fill it out.

For everyone: hello, I am a retired 18Z (plus 18F and 18E). I live in Colorado Springs and currently doing contract work. I find the blogs and stories here in the SWJ very interesting and informative. I like seeing the differences in opinions and experiences.

SethB: you say you rolled your eyes at the M-240 story, but just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. My own battalion leadership suggested linking the 7.62 match to get rid of it before fiscal year turn-in, and we told them no - bad idea.

When experienced 18Bs say not to use certain ammo in certain weapons, I tend to believe them.

v/r

DF

[Ken White]

The 240 incident you cite is probably not one I know of but there have been at least two others that I'm aware of. In all those cases, there's a possibility the ammo was not causative -- could well have been simply coincidence. Lot of things can cause weapon failure, even age....

The standard pressure for 7.62x51 in US service hovers around 50K psi -- that includes the M118 Match. However, some folks buy special lot, off DODIC stuff like the special purpose M993 AP which pops at 55,115 psi. Those same guys buy some also special lot M118 for longer range usage and those can go up to 60,200 psi.

All 7.62 issue weapons are batch tested with the M60 High Pressure Test cartridge at 67.5K psi so theoretically that even 60.2K psi should be a no worries item.

Since the M240 has to be able to handle that max, the blow up may well have been caused by something else...

[Demon Fox]

OK, back to the ammo stuff:

The following is copied straight out of FM 3-22.9 (12 August 2008) Chapter 2, pages 2-35 thru 2-36:

-------------------------------------------------------
This section provides information about different types of standard military ammunition used in M16- and M4-
series weapons.

Use only authorized ammunition manufactured to U.S. and NATO specifications (Table 2-8).

Table 2-8. Authorized ammunition.

M193 cartridge –
5.56-mm, ball
Plain tip The M193 is the
standard cartridge for
field use with the M16A1
rifle.
The M193 cartridge is a center-fire cartridge
with a 55-grain, gilded metal-jacketed, lead
alloy core bullet.

M196 cartridge –
5.56-mm, tracer
Red or orange tip The M196 cartridge is
used only in the M16A1
rifle.
Its main uses are for
observation of fire,
incendiary effect, and
signaling.
Soldiers should avoid long-term use of 100
percent tracer rounds, which could cause
deposits of incendiary material or chemical
compounds that could damage the barrel.
When tracer rounds are fired, they are mixed
with ball ammunition in a ratio of no greater
than one-to-one with a preferred ratio of
three or four ball rounds to one tracer round.

M199 cartridge –
5.56-mm, dummy
Six grooves along
the sides of the
case beginning
about 1/2 inch
from its tip
The M199 dummy
cartridge is used in all
M16-/M4-series
weapons during dryfiring
and other training.
This cartridge contains no propellant or
primer.
The primer well is open to prevent damage
to the firing pin.

M200 cartridge –
5.56-mm, blank
(no projectile)
Case mouth is
closed with a
seven-petal
rosette crimp,
violet tip
The M200 blank
cartridge is used in all
M16-/M4-series
weapons.
N/A

M855 cartridge –
5.56-mm, ball
Green tip The M855 cartridge is
used in the M16A2/3/4
and in M4-series
weapons.
The M855 cartridge has a 62-grain, gilded
metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a
steel penetrator.
The primer and case are waterproof. This
round is also linked and used in the M249.
NOTE: This ammunition should not be used
in the M16A1 except under emergency
conditions, and only at targets less than 90
meters away. The twist of the M16A1 rifling
is not sufficient to stabilize the length of the
round's projectile.

M856 cartridge –
5.56-mm, tracer
Red tip (orange
when linked 4 to 1
for the M249)
The M856 tracer
cartridge is used in the
M16A2/3/4 and M4-
series weapons.
The M856 tracer cartridge has
characteristics similar to the M196 tracer,
with a slightly longer tracer burnout distance.
This cartridge has a 63.7-grain bullet.
The M856 does not have a steel penetrator.
NOTE: This ammunition should not be used
in the M16A1 except under emergency
conditions, and only at targets less than
90 meters away. The twist of the M16A1
rifling is not sufficient to stabilize the length
of the round's projectile.

M862 cartridge –
5.56-mm, short-range
training ammunition
(SRTA)
N/A The M862 SRTA is used
in all rifles and is
designed exclusively for
training.
The M862 SRTA can be used in lieu of
service ammunition on indoor ranges and by
units who have a limited range fan that does
not allow the firing of service ammunition.
If adequate range facilities are not available
for sustainment training, SRTA can be used
for any firing exercise of 25 meters or less.
This includes the 25-meter scaled silhouette,
25-meter alternate qualification course, and
quick-fire training.
SRTA can also be used for urban operations
(UO) training.
NOTES: 1. See Appendix A for use of SRTA
in training.
2. Although SRTA closely replicates the
trajectory and characteristics of service
ammunition out to 25 meters, the settings
placed on the sights for SRTA could be
different for service ammunition. SRTA
should not be used to battlesight zero
weapons that will fire service ammunition.
3. SRTA ammunition must be used with the
M2 training bolt.

M995 cartridge –
5.56-mm, armor piercing
(AP)
Conventional
brass cartridge
case
Aluminum cup sits
at the rear of the
projectile (for the
purpose of
properly locating
the penetrator
within the
projectile)
The M995 cartridge is
used by the M249
(SAW), M16/A2/A3/A4,
and M4-series weapons.
It is intended for use
against light armored
targets.
The M995 offers the capability to defeat light
armored targets at ranges two to three times
that of currently available 5.56-mm
ammunition.
The M995 cartridge consists of a projectile
and a propelling charge contained in a brass
cartridge case. The projectile is a dense
metal penetrator (tungsten carbide) enclosed
by a standard gilded metal jacket. The
cartridge utilizes a double base propellant. A
standard rifle cartridge primer is used in the
case to initiate the propelling charge.

--------------------------------------------------------


You may notice that neither Mk262 Mod 0 nor Mk262 Mod 1 77 grain ammo is NOT on this authorized list of ammunition for the M16 and M4 family of rifles. SethB, you ARE correct that the 77 grain can be put through M4/M16s with documented good range and effects; however, if the Army didn't put it on the authorized list they probably had a reason. Additionally, the 77 grain is usually in such short supply that it is reserved for the unit's SPRs/Mk12s.

You'll also notice that some of the ammo is restricted when it comes to the M16A1, to include the M855 standard green tip.

As for the development of the 77 grain, below are some websites that discuss it. Most claim it was developed specifically for the SPR; a couple mention development for competition purposes (which makes logical sense). One source also mentions that USAMU indeed led the development for combat purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_12_S..._Purpose_Rifle

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/mk12.htm

http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm

http://www.angusarms.com/SPR.htm

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/b...2-mod-1?page=2

http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq-nb.html

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Articles.asp?ID=145

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/hist_mk262.html

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28326



As for the 7.62x51 173 grain M118 and 175 grain M118LR match ammo: if you want to link it up and give it a shot through an M240, go right ahead. I'll be standing back behind the line when you do. :-)

v/r

DF

[Pete]

This makes me feel old. When I was a kid we bit the end of the cartridge to pour the powder in before we rammed the ball home. When the barrel was badly fouled British .577 rounds were easier to ram than the U.S. .58 stuff. No doubt JMA remembers .577-calibre from his rhinoceros-hunting safari days.

[Demon Fox]

Ken, you could very well be correct on the M240 issue. It happened in a different group than mine and word got around. My Bn leadership also suggested lining up a bunch of sniper rifles and burning the ammo. OK, we had over 53,000 rounds of M118 7.62x51 match ammo - you do the math! I told the commander that he would have to buy a bunch of new sniper barrels after we were done! We wound up just eating the ammo on our FY report. There was just no legal or safe way to get rid of it.

I once witnessed an M240 have an accidental discharge due to poor maintenance. It was new guy on our team using another team's MG at a convoy live-fire range. We broke apart the M240 to see if there was mechanical malfunction to explain the AD. When we opened the feed tray the metal was literally peeling off from rust. I was furious at the blatant neglect and our new guy was cleared of wrongdoing.

Here is the list of authorized M240B ammo from FM 3-22.68 (Jul 06):

The M240B machine gun uses the following types of ammunition. See also table 3-3:

􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Ball M80—for use against light materials and personnel, and for range training.

􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Armor-Piercing M61—for use against lightly armored targets.

􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Tracer M62—for observation of fire, incendiary effects, signaling, and for training. When the gunner fires tracer rounds, they mix with ball ammunition in a ratio of four ball rounds to one tracer round.

􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Dummy M63—for use during mechanical training.

􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Blank M82—for use during training when simulated live fire is desired. The gunner should use a BFA to fire this ammunition.

v/r

DF