The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[AlexTX ret]

Carried weight, human performance, doctrine (tactics?) and training are all more critical issues - or more important than calibre. Put another way, I can't see a need to alter training, (apart from the handling) doctrine and tactics, if I change my main infantry weapon from M4/5.56mm, to an M4/6.5mm, or even an AK/7.62. Actually an optic sight might have more overall impact.

Well we can agree on the advantage of opitics espiecially if it's the new Aimpoint that doesn't need batteries.

However, I fight this point that the weapons don't affect basic doctine all day long. I even asked a question about it in another post. The problem is that it has affected the training and tactics of other countries. The Russians and the Chinese for examples. The Chinese are going through a renaissance of their Infantry tactics since they've cut their dependance on Russian operational doctrine. They are building a new military in all areas, in all directions. However for their Infantry they are creating small units that fight at 400m-500m and their infantry cartridge and rifle is suppose to defeat body armor at those Ranges. This plus a new range of support weapons like their new Multi shot grenade launcher, could put our troops at a serious disadvantage. If an infantryman's fighting tool is so unimportant, was is?

In 1987 I went from using a 7.62mm SLR and GPMG to an all 5.56mm platoon, and tactical doctrine did not miss a beat, except for some very minor issues, caused by now having everyone with a fully automatic weapon. Even today the minor tactics of 1919 remain relevant, regardless of calibre.

I'll ask a question I asked a person today. What area of combat did you prove this to be true? I'm not being an *ssh*le nor am I despariging your record or experiences. But there seems to be a disconnect between the small unit commanders and the bureaucracy. I see no discussion between levels of command about what our basic operational policy is and can it be made better.

IIMO, Fragmentation is the best primary wounding mechanism, for a small calibre round, but it is not useful to suggest that the primary purpose of an infantry round is to break up inside the human body. Perforating cover is just as important - thus the CRISAT criteria. After that, multiple hits would seem to be a very strong determinant in providing the relative state of incapacity required - or much more likely to kill.

Yes but that is becoming more and more questionable. Yes, the prenetration of cover is important. But multiple small calliber hits are showing a certain weakness. There are more and more stories from troops in the field where are getting good hits and the enemy combatant still is capable of firing. Or as one special incident that I got a paper on a few weeks ago. The shortness of the range of the 5.56 round when fired from a IFV meant that try as they may they couldn't hit the enemy effectively. The enemy was quickly reinforced and only the IFV's abillity to speed away saved them from the RPGs shot at them.

All that said, as a point of tactical doctrine, I assert that infantry minor tactics should emphasise the use of projected HE, as the primary means of breaking enemy will. I fully recognise that this has some problematic issues associated with it, but it is a viable solution.

Maybe in rural Afganistan, but in the neighborhoods of Afganistan and Iraq, it really does have its limitations. As the Russians found in Cheznia, only boots on the ground had the capability of knockingout the Cheznians hunter-Killer groups. Of course, they also found out that their Contract Soldier program showed no advantages over conscription. In the final result it was the SOG groups that did the actual fighting.

FRAGMENTATION
The data I have on this is that the M855 cartridge (62-grain, gilded metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator) will at high velocities, (900m/s) fragment up to 50% after travelling 5-8cm into a 10% gelatine medium. M855 remains intact at velocities below 763m/s, so from an M4 barrel, M855 will not fragment on impact. In fact it will only achieve viable fragmentation (30-20%) out to 100-125m.

However, I think it is fair to say that the actual requirement for immediate incapacitation is a close range issue, bearing in mind that even with multiple fatal wounds into the heart and lungs some men may continue to function, to the degree he can walk and return fire for up to 15-20 seconds.

According to ARDEC, this would account for why some soldiers assume that their fire has not been effective.

First I would like to see the report that these figures come from. They counter what I have seen. However, I live in a dream world that makes it hard to get different views. However, it is unusual that my reports minimize the effects of fragmentation of the SS109/M855 round. This is possible because the latest information I have was a study done on pigs. Cartridge effects is a real science but it seems that we try to turn it into black magic.

As for the length of time that a combatant is effective after being shot and the onset of incapacitation is one of the most controversal parts of determining the effectiveness of a particular cartridge. The Army seems to more interest in keeping the status quo then actually doing tests on the soldiers in the field complaints. I'm not saying they're wrong but nowadays it seems the there is a lot of bias in the reports I read.

[AlexTX ret]

I've fired 3500 rounds over three months through a gun with no malfunctions. I added lubricant by squirting oil through the gas vents on the side of the carrier. On the 3501st round the cases stuck (a hot day and a hot gun with 800 rounds of dirty Remington ammunition fired in several hours) and revealed the biggest problem that I have with the rifle. The case has a thin rim and a stuck cases often loses a rim. You need a rod to clear that.

Were you in a combat zone at that time. I can't see you trusting your life to a rifle with so little care esp a M16/M4

Most parts on an AR15 derivative can be replaced easily. A spare bolt and carrier weigh twelve ounces and drop in in less than fifteen seconds. The trigger is a different issue and I have had several trigger groups fail.

The problem is that you don't have the luxury to quickly change the bolt and carrier group in combat. That is why soldiers are finding it hard to find the time to clean their weapons 3 or 4 times a day as new policy requires. But you don't have a choice because their life depends on it.

I used the M16 in training and if I had a missfire, I just raised my hand and shouted out that I had a malfunction. When I got in combat there was no one to tell I had a malfunction. All it matterd that if your weapon malfunctioned then you were helpless for however long it took you to clear it. I have more than a few gray hairs today because of this.

John Garand was interviewed about the M16s teething issues. He said that his rifle went through the same issues in 1942. As for reliability, a Marine friend told me that the M16 was too small and the M14 had too many reliability issues. He favored the AKM. I didn't argue.

First, the M16 went into cambat in 1965, it shouldn't still be having teething problems.

Secondly, I took the flak as a platoon leader because I had a AKMS (folding stock) made in Czechoslovakia. There were problems such as battle field identification (AKs and M16 sounded different, AKs also went "Clack" when you went from safe to fire mode), also you had to scrounge your own ammunition. However, that was a help in some operations when they couldn't supply you properly. Airmobile relied on a thin supply line.

[Ken White]

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

This particular item:

General Wheeler recommends:

1. In FY 1964, procure between 50,000 and 100,000 AR-15 rifles and use them to equip Air Assault, Special Forces, and Airborne units;

is very close to my recollection of the Recommendation that 82d Abn Div sent to DA. Only difference was the number of AR-15s to buy was 50K, period and they would be for special purpose units (type not specified) and the recommendation was to retain the M-14 in a shortened and lightened version for airborne units.

H&R and Springfield both made variants as the M14E1. This is an early one, the later models had an 18" or so barrel.

[Ken White]

I is courteous...

I've fired 3500 rounds over three months through a gun with no malfunctions...The case has a thin rim and a stuck cases often loses a rim. You need a rod to clear that.

First, are you saying you did this with no cleaning? Second, what if you have no rod?

I would have thought that grit from a desert or sand from a beach would be worse.

In combat you get that, rain / snow, falling in mud puddles, wading through creeks, blown debris from nearby explosions, falling with weapon in front of you while running, rapping people up side the head with the muzzle (accidentally, of course), spotty ammo quality, bad magazines, overheating from excessive automatic fire causing carbon bake, particularly on the firing pin, carbon build up within the gas tube and dozens of other things.

Ever suffer a gas tube getting bent? Got a frozen front sight post so you can't adjust for a zero? Ever jam the Bolt Closure device accidentally on a feeding round -- or on a double stack? What do you do if the stake on the Bolt Carrier Key screws loosens? Not to mention firing it in sub zero cold where you can use no lube...

I can live with it but there are better out there that do not take as much care. All weapons can have problems and all require some maintenance; the issue is what's excessive.

Most parts on an AR15 derivative can be replaced easily. A spare bolt and carrier weigh twelve ounces and drop in in less than fifteen seconds. The trigger is a different issue and I have had several trigger groups fail.

See Alex. You may not have 15 seconds -- or a spare bolt -- and having to take a weapon out of service in a fire fight is not a comforting idea...

John Garand was interviewed about the M16s teething issues. He said that his rifle went through the same issues in 1942. As for reliability, a Marine friend told me that the M16 was too small and the M14 had too many reliability issues. He favored the AKM. I didn't argue.

I'll argue with him; the AK series is super reliable, no question. It also requires almost no maintenance. You get what you pay for; it is also woefully inaccurate, has even less range than an M4 and has little more knockdown power. It's one plus aside from being low maintenance is tha the larger bullet isn't easily deflected by vegetation. I also never had an problems with the M14; no reliability issues back in the day but these nowadays are cobbled together from parts laying around in depots so a mismatch is possible. Still, I'll take an 'unreliable' M14 and he can have his AK. We start at 800 meters and move toward each other...

True on teething; the M1 did have some. So did the M-14. So did the M-16 -- but as Alex said, the weapon is our longest serving rifle since the trap door Springfield. Time for teething problems to be long gone. I stand by my comments, the weapon requires more maintenance and provides less reliability than is desirable in a combat weapon. Not a shooting weapon; a combat weapon.

[AlexTX ret]

11th Air Assault Division?

I was still in College when the 11th Air Assault Division was showing what could be done. I also missed the first year (1965) of the 1st air cav in country. I was trying to get there but you can only do so much.

If I had a hero, it was Hal Moore. I met him once and he didn't look anything like Mel Gibson.

[AlexTX ret]

I is courteous...

I'll argue with him; the AK series is super reliable, no question. It also requires almost no maintenance. You get what you pay for; it is also woefully inaccurate, has even less range than an M4 and has little more knockdown power. It's one plus aside from being low maintenance is tha the larger bullet isn't easily deflected by vegetation. I also never had an problems with the M14; no reliability issues back in the day but these nowadays are cobbled together from parts laying around in depots so a mismatch is possible. Still, I'll take an 'unreliable' M14 and he can have his AK. We start at 800 meters and move toward each other...

Okay,Okay I wouldn't take that bet. However, if you didn't have 800m to "sneak up on me", it might be interesting. The AK47s were, as you say, very short ranged and inaccurate. However, that had a lot to do with the ammunition that the Chinese and Vietnamise used. Pure Crap! However, I did some astute trading and managed to get a Czech made AKMS and a large ammount of ammo from a certain Russian advisor that got foolish.

Hey, it was almost a "real" assault rifle, it didn't jam and it had twice the range of a Chinese AK47 or if I remember rightly a type 56.

[Ken White]

However, if you didn't have 800m to "sneak up on me", it might be interesting.

I cannot believe that you would imply that I would even contemplate the seeking of an unfair advantage...

[Rifleman]

Still, I'll take an 'unreliable' M14 and he can have his AK. We start at 800 meters and move toward each other...

Sounds like a man who's spent time on a KD range wraped up in a M1907 leather sling.

The late Jeff Cooper would approve.

Excuse me: "looped up" in a M1907 leather sling!

[Kiwigrunt]

Just for those of you who haven't come across it:

ammo-oracle

[jcustis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Carried weight, human performance, doctrine (tactics?) and training are all more critical issues - or more important than calibre. Put another way, I can't see a need to alter training, (apart from the handling) doctrine and tactics, if I change my main infantry weapon from M4/5.56mm, to an M4/6.5mm, or even an AK/7.62. Actually an optic sight might have more overall impact.

Well we can agree on the advantage of opitics espiecially if it's the new Aimpoint that doesn't need batteries.

I believe that optics indeed make a ton of difference, and we are in fact just starting to realize this, even if we don't know it right now. I think that problem stems (at least from the Marine Corps perspective) from the fact that our training and courses of qualication fire do not address these issues. Most rounds fired during the various combat marksmanship courses of fire in the CMP run out no further than 50m, which I think is a shambles of a training setup.

[SethB]

Were you in a combat zone at that time. I can't see you trusting your life to a rifle with so little care esp a M16/M4

Certainly wasn't, and wouldn't. I just wanted to see what would happen. The guy who gave me the idea routinely shoots uppers for five times that long without cleaning and has fewer issues than I did.

The problem is that you don't have the luxury to quickly change the bolt and carrier group in combat. That is why soldiers are finding it hard to find the time to clean their weapons 3 or 4 times a day as new policy requires. But you don't have a choice because their life depends on it.

Understood. I just brought it up because most of the parts that I've seen break are on the carrier. Dropping a new one in is easier than sourcing a new bolt or replacing the extractor.

I used the M16 in training and if I had a missfire, I just raised my hand and shouted out that I had a malfunction. When I got in combat there was no one to tell I had a malfunction. All it matterd that if your weapon malfunctioned then you were helpless for however long it took you to clear it. I have more than a few gray hairs today because of this.

The first shooting course that I took was from Marine and NYPD cop who first went overseas in 1965. He told us that he wasn't told how to fight; he had to figure that out on his own. He had a few simple methods for getting the weapon back up and running. If you want to know PM me and I will tell you his methods.

First, the M16 went into cambat in 1965, it shouldn't still be having teething problems.

But it did. Not all of which were the fault of the designer. One of the engineers from Colt pointed out that it took almost twenty years to get the military to alter the TDP on the M4 carbine to allow for a superior extractor spring and buffer. The parts commonality between the M16A2 and the M4 was more important than extractor tension.

First, are you saying you did this with no cleaning?

I did. And I have not run the most extensive test to that effect.

Second, what if you have no rod?

Then you are ####ed. That is why the extractor and the inferior rim on the NATO cartridge is one of the biggest problems with the gun.

In combat you get that, rain / snow, falling in mud puddles, wading through creeks, blown debris from nearby explosions, falling with weapon in front of you while running, rapping people up side the head with the muzzle (accidentally, of course), spotty ammo quality, bad magazines, overheating from excessive automatic fire causing carbon bake, particularly on the firing pin, carbon build up within the gas tube and dozens of other things.

I understand that those are issues. I had thought that you would cite them as more of an issue than carbon debris in the receiver. And as for carbon build up in the gas tube, I've never seen or heard of that. Lots of people use pipe cleaner to try to clean the gas tube, but they often break. Now, PRI makes a "Fat Boy" gas tube that has a larger internal diameter to try and change the timing of the M4 gas system. It has a shelf that carbon deposits on.

Ever suffer a gas tube getting bent?

No. My rifles have Colt gas tubes and free float rails. They are protected by the rail and the Colt tubes are almost impossible to melt.

Got a frozen front sight post so you can't adjust for a zero?

Never been that cold, thankfully.

Ever jam the Bolt Closure device accidentally on a feeding round -- or on a double stack?

Many time. 25 times in a row once, just for the practice. Lock the bolt to the rear, insert fingers and clear debris, rack three times and reload the weapon.

What do you do if the stake on the Bolt Carrier Key screws loosens?

Ned Christiansen makes a great tool that stakes the keys better than the factory job. I know a guy who had a key come loose in RVN and when he builds guns now he stakes the #### out of the key. That reduces the chances of a key coming loose.

Not to mention firing it in sub zero cold where you can use no lube...

Never been there. I'm told that the Finns did a test with the AKM, the M16A1 and the SIG. All three passed although when they froze the guns outside, but they couldn't open the M16 without firing it...

Big issue with the cold is that the gas system operates on a more narrow range than an AKM. Lots of guns work fine until it gets cold and then they are undergassed. I'm told that Colt has designed a gas port that meters gas, but I haven't seen it.

I can live with it but there are better out there that do not take as much care. All weapons can have problems and all require some maintenance; the issue is what's excessive.See Alex. You may not have 15 seconds -- or a spare bolt -- and having to take a weapon out of service in a fire fight is not a comforting idea...

I wasn't saying that replacing the bolt should be a routine thing, but it is an option when something breaks.

I'll argue with him; the AK series is super reliable, no question. It also requires almost no maintenance.

I had a Chinese AKM clone with a bent reciever and while shooting a friends rifle a spent case got stuck behind the carrier. While I think an Izmash built rifle or one from an arsenal abroad would be better, I don't think that they are perfect.

You get what you pay for; it is also woefully inaccurate, has even less range than an M4 and has little more knockdown power. It's one plus aside from being low maintenance is tha the larger bullet isn't easily deflected by vegetation. I also never had an problems with the M14; no reliability issues back in the day but these nowadays are cobbled together from parts laying around in depots so a mismatch is possible. Still, I'll take an 'unreliable' M14 and he can have his AK. We start at 800 meters and move toward each other...

He'd grease you with an M40. He wasn't an 0311 the whole time...

True on teething; the M1 did have some. So did the M-14. So did the M-16 -- but as Alex said, the weapon is our longest serving rifle since the trap door Springfield. Time for teething problems to be long gone. I stand by my comments, the weapon requires more maintenance and provides less reliability than is desirable in a combat weapon. Not a shooting weapon; a combat weapon.

I'm not going to disagree, just post my perspective, limited as it is. I would point out that product improved M16s have been designed by various engineers for the last 40 years. The lack of a buyer is the most serious issue. Its hard to make progress when the Army isn't serious about improving the design, as evidenced by the failure to change the extractor spring at the earliest opportunity...

Sounds like a man who's spent time on a KD range wraped up in a M1907 leather sling.

The late Jeff Cooper would approve.

Excuse me: "looped up" in a M1907 leather sling!

I sat in Cooper's living room and he told me that the ideal combat rifle is the M1903A3.

[William F. Owen]

Well we can agree on the advantage of opitics espiecially if it's the new Aimpoint that doesn't need batteries.

I'm not so worried about batteries as the ability to still use it, when wearing NVGs, and matching it's ability to enable quick and accurate shooting, with increasing the ability to detect targets - this being a sore point with me, having had to suffer the SUIT then SUSAT in the British Army.

However, I fight this point that the weapons don't affect basic doctine all day long. I even asked a question about it in another post.

Fight away. I never said weapons don't effect tactics. I said the calibre of weapons has a very negligable effect.
Please tell me how your tactical doctrine is based on the range and terminal effect of your infantry rifle, based on a comparison of 7.62mm v 5.56mm?
My understanding has always been on applying weapons capabilities to tactics. Not basing my tactics on what my weapons might be able to do.

The problem is that it has affected the training and tactics of other countries.

As concerns other countries, so what? I'd ignore anything the Chinese do. I have spent a lot of time handling Chinese equipment, talking to PLA officers as well as Royal Thai and Indian Army officers who have studied them close up. They aren't that good.

The Chinese are going through a renaissance of their Infantry tactics since they've cut their dependance on Russian operational doctrine. They are building a new military in all areas, in all directions.

So they keep saying. It will still be same mindset handling the new equipment. When was the PRC dependant on Russian/Soviet Doctrine. Yes they copied lot of Soviet equipment, but for example, I know of no Deep Battle writing within PLA "Literature and Arts," or that they sought to practice it, or ever could. From 1945-75 the PLA was predominately light infantry, where as the Soviets were mostly "Motor Rifle."

However for their Infantry they are creating small units that fight at 400m-500m and their infantry cartridge and rifle is suppose to defeat body armor at those Ranges. This plus a new range of support weapons like their new Multi shot grenade launcher, could put our troops at a serious disadvantage. If an infantryman's fighting tool is so unimportant, was is?

So do I take it that your response to this one item of information is to address it by changing the calibre of the issue US infantry?

I'll ask a question I asked a person today. What area of combat did you prove this to be true? I'm not being an *ssh*le nor am I despariging your record or experiences. But there seems to be a disconnect between the small unit commanders and the bureaucracy. I see no discussion between levels of command about what our basic operational policy is and can it be made better.

Disparage away. I have no operational experience that proves this point, and unless I had compared both weapons sets under identical conditions, it would be irrelevant.
You may see no discussion, but that is exactly the discussion I have been involved in for the last 8 years. In relation to infantry science it is what I do.

There are more and more stories from troops in the field where are getting good hits and the enemy combatant still is capable of firing. Or as one special incident that I got a paper on a few weeks ago.

There may be stories. Let me put it this way, in the British and Israeli armies, there are no stories, or none that indicate a trend which there a body of empirical evidence to merit attention.

First I would like to see the report that these figures come from. They counter what I have seen. However, I live in a dream world that makes it hard to get different views.

The figures come from notes I took based on presentations from ARDEC and NATO Light Weapons working group.

However, it is unusual that my reports minimize the effects of fragmentation of the SS109/M855 round. This is possible because the latest information I have was a study done on pigs.

And did these tests produce accurate, measurable and repeatable data?

Cartridge effects is a real science but it seems that we try to turn it into black magic.

Having spent 3 years of my life intermittently, but actively involved in testing body armour, against a very wide range of rounds, I would submit that the terminal performance of bullets on various homogenous mediums is nearly an exact science. Reading that across into wounding is not an exact science, for very obvious reasons.

As for the length of time that a combatant is effective after being shot and the onset of incapacitation is one of the most controversal parts of determining the effectiveness of a particular cartridge. The Army seems to more interest in keeping the status quo then actually doing tests on the soldiers in the field complaints.

I am not aware of the controversy. The length of time someone can function is directly related to the time it takes them to exsanguinate, and the level of incapacity required. The wounding mechanisms are extremely well understood, if you talk to doctors.
What testing would you do? The alleged terminal effect of a given infantry round on the human body is a minor part of the factors that have to be balanced.
Now if you want to can change the M4 to 6.5mm if you want. It will make no difference to tactics, or the effectiveness of your infantry. The same money is almost certainly better spent on training.

[Ken White]

But it did. Not all of which were the fault of the designer. One of the engineers from Colt pointed out that it took almost twenty years to get the military to alter the TDP on the M4 carbine to allow for a superior extractor spring and buffer. The parts commonality between the M16A2 and the M4 was more important than extractor tension.

Whether the original design was flawed or Army mandated changes were flawed is irrelevant -- the Troops have the weapon that exists, not an idealized variant.

I did. And I have not run the most extensive test to that effect.

And the combat relevance of this is?

Then you are f%$&@d. That is why the extractor and the inferior rim on the NATO cartridge is one of the biggest problems with the gun.

Again, reality bites.

I understand that those are issues. I had thought that you would cite them as more of an issue than carbon debris in the receiver.

It's not any one issue, but the synergistic effects of two or more that cause problems in combat.

No. My rifles have Colt gas tubes and free float rails. They are protected by the rail and the Colt tubes are almost impossible to melt.

Everyone doesn't have free float rails and some that do remove them from time to to time...

Many time. 25 times in a row once, just for the practice. Lock the bolt to the rear, insert fingers and clear debris, rack three times and reload the weapon.

If that's adequate combat reliability for you, enjoy.

Ned Christiansen makes a great tool that stakes the keys better than the factory job. I know a guy who had a key come loose in RVN and when he builds guns now he stakes the s**t out of the key. That reduces the chances of a key coming loose.

Regrettably, most military contractors aren't that conscientious.

I wasn't saying that replacing the bolt should be a routine thing, but it is an option when something breaks.

Seth has spare bolts; Joe does not.

He'd grease you with an M40. He wasn't an 0311 the whole time...

I thought you said he wanted an AKM... Where did he get the M40?

I'm not going to disagree, just post my perspective, limited as it is. I would point out that product improved M16s have been designed by various engineers for the last 40 years. The lack of a buyer is the most serious issue. Its hard to make progress when the Army isn't serious about improving the design, as evidenced by the failure to change the extractor spring at the earliest opportunity...

Welcome to reality. What should be and what is are generally quite different. The soldier in combat has to deal with what is.

I sat in Cooper's living room and he told me that the ideal combat rifle is the M1903A3.

He had a point, it is better than most -- not least because it is absolutely reliable and someone who's hit by a .30-06 knows they've been hit...

Combat and shooting are different things.

[Daniel Watters]

This is something from Rec Guns that I think is a good start at trying to unravel this mess. I don't agree with many of its findings for I have different sources. Also, I feel that there is a certain bias but where would I find a place that wouldn't be. Gun Theology being what it is, everybody (including me) thinks they have a clue.

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

I hope this gives Wilf a sense of how long this SCHV rifle discussion has been going on. I have a few of the reports mentioned in the timeline so they're not pulling all of this stuff out of their *sses. But I can't vouch for the report's voracity. It's free, you get what you pay for.

As the author of the linked article, thank you for the plug. With the 5.56mm Timeline, I'm not trying to reach any conclusions. It is meant merely as a historical record of events. When I state the findings and conclusions from a specific report, I am merely repeating what was written by the authors of that report. Everything that I use is open source, although it is not always easily found. I prefer to go back to the primary sources where ever possible. Things can get twisted as they are repeated by successive authors. Of the secondary sources, I trust Ezell and McNaugher as they worked from archival documents and started early enough to interview most of the participants while they were still alive and had reasonably fresh memories of the events.

I have been working on the Timeline for 10 years, and it is currently just shy of 600 pages in length. It really couldn't be published anywhere other than the Net as I have no pretty pictures, and the subject matter is often too esoteric to be of broad interest. However, by being on the Net, I have no constraints as to length. For instance, the publisher of the recent book "American Rifle" demanded that the author's lengthy bibliography be left out in order to save pages, and thus, reduce printing costs.

If anyone has other original documents and sources that they'd like to provide or recommend, I'd gladly take a look.

[AlexTX ret]

I won't deny Ken's responses. I'm a consultant for a a living and I was none too gentle in my post. It's not that I feel that your experiences aren't valid. It's just that I'm usually being drowned by literature that promotes this mod and that improvement by people who at best had some combat training but ususally have no combat experiences at all. So they're talking out their collective *ss. At least you're not selling something and you seem to ready to listen. For that I'm grateful.

The first shooting course that I took was from Marine and NYPD cop who first went overseas in 1965. He told us that he wasn't told how to fight; he had to figure that out on his own. He had a few simple methods for getting the weapon back up and running. If you want to know PM me and I will tell you his methods.

I learned more ways to overcome the weaknesses of the M16 system than I will admit to. The problem isn't that I could create work arounds. It is that I have to and spend so much of the time doing that. The M16 system has its advantages but reliability isn't one of them. Now I question if there isn't a better weapon system that could be found. In the time since the introduction of the the M16 and the SS109/M855, there has been much technology that has come around our way. Shouldn't there be a better way and why are we not trying to find it.

The Rangers are supposedly testing the FN SCAR-L M16 concept but I've heard that most of the test rifles aren't going to the troops in Afganistan but staying here in the United States. That plus a round of critisims by the military and the procurement system that the SCAR-L isn't reliable enough even before the system is given its day in the sun. This rush to judgement without a good testing by experienced soldiers smacks of a determination that the test has already being considered a wash and the SCAR-L will be found not to be acceptable. The HK 316 system has already found a similiar fate. Why aren't these systems given an adequate test and then evaluated on their merits. I mean the opinion put forth by the procurement board that the fact that they have short stroke pistons gas systems that cause the rifle to lose its zero and the weapon is not as accurate because of the piston. This without any studies to prove that this is so, smacks of some agenda being put forth. The only reason I can see this being so, is that the military doesn't want to spend money on the individual soldier but doesn't want the same trooper to become less trusting of his weapon.

But it did. Not all of which were the fault of the designer. One of the engineers from Colt pointed out that it took almost twenty years to get the military to alter the TDP on the M4 carbine to allow for a superior extractor spring and buffer. The parts commonality between the M16A2 and the M4 was more important than extractor tension.

When soldiers die because of such stupidity, I could beat my head on a heavy object with frustration. There has been to much of this and yet we still talk stupidly about the M16/M4 system being the best all around weapon system.

I understand that those are issues. I had thought that you would cite them as more of an issue than carbon debris in the receiver. And as for carbon build up in the gas tube, I've never seen or heard of that. Lots of people use pipe cleaner to try to clean the gas tube, but they often break. Now, PRI makes a "Fat Boy" gas tube that has a larger internal diameter to try and change the timing of the M4 gas system. It has a shelf that carbon deposits on.

You use what you are issued. No more, no less. And the M16 has been problematic since its inception. You're friend's AKM would have him heavily (draconian) disciplined. Modifications you apply to your own weapon is a article 15 offense if not higher because you damamged goverment property and reduced the effectiveness of your unit.

I had a Chinese AKM clone with a bent reciever and while shooting a friends rifle a spent case got stuck behind the carrier. While I think an Izmash built rifle or one from an arsenal abroad would be better, I don't think that they are perfect.

Almost all AK type weapons found on the international market are parts guns thrown together by the Chinese. For the most part, they "S*CK". But that is a fact of life. I'm still able to make puchases of Czech and a few other ex-Warsaw Pact Nation's best but the market is drying up. If you find a newer Russian weapon inspect it fully to make sure it isn't a Chinese manufactured out of Russian parts. They have certain quality conditions.


QUOTE=SethB;72922]I'm not going to disagree, just post my perspective, limited as it is. I would point out that product improved M16s have been designed by various engineers for the last 40 years. The lack of a buyer is the most serious issue. Its hard to make progress when the Army isn't serious about improving the design, as evidenced by the failure to change the extractor spring at the earliest opportunity...[/QUOTE]

All you can do is understand this fact and go on. There is nothing that can be done for the regular soldier.

QUOTE=SethB;72922]I sat in Cooper's living room and he told me that the ideal combat rifle is the M1903A3.[/QUOTE]

I one time thought that the sun rose and set on Jeff Cooper. Then I got a different perspective and realize he was the product of his experiences. This is what most people are and it takes a great deal of work to change yourself.

He was a product of his time and times change. He still is one of the most intelligent analysts that I've ever found but he had an agenda and he wouldn't modify it to meet the future that is coming upon us.

However, I am still truly heart struck by his passing.

[AlexTX ret]

Please tell me how your tactical doctrine is based on the range and terminal effect of your infantry rifle, based on a comparison of 7.62mm v 5.56mm? My understanding has always been on applying weapons capabilities to tactics. Not basing my tactics on what my weapons might be able to do.

No can do about the comparing 7.62 NATO vs the present 5.56 NATO. I would like to see crew served weapons, such as the 7.62 MMG taken away fro the squad/platoon and regulate it to the company's discretion. To do that requires a change in the cartridge to something more effective than the present 5.56 round. I've never bee a fan of the 7.62 NATO given to the individual rifleman as a weapon. I was/am a fan of the FN Fal but don't believe that is the way to fight a battle. Now there are better rifles in 7.62 NATO than the FNFal/M14 weapons systems but I still don't think they should be applied to a small group except as a possible DM rifle.

I think a change to the most effective small unit cartridge should be looked into and evaluated to the small unit's needs. I think that is the 7x43 round for a lot of reasons. However, that will never get a fair trial because that would be too big an upset to higher level leaders policies. For one thing it would cost a lot of money we man not have because we're in a serious recession/depression. Valid point. So we need to go over our possible cartridge types and pick the one that best fits our needs be that physical or finacial. So since so many of our present M16/M4 need a refit to keep them first class, this would be a greater opportunity to look for the best round that addresses the weaknesses without requiring a total weapon change.

If it only needs a barrel change then we were going to do that anyway. So the 6.5 MPC looks better and better. Side effects are increased range (500m) which could be best utilized by an acceptance of optics on the individual rifleman's weapon. Add to that such as the Milkor M40 with its 800m range. Also a IAR/Saw autofire weapon plus a SDM specialist (though this would be less needed because you 've increased the marksmanship and situational awareness of the common soldier.

As concerns other countries, so what? I'd ignore anything the Chinese do. I have spent a lot of time handling Chinese equipment, talking to PLA officers as well as Royal Thai and Indian Army officers who have studied them close up. They aren't that good.

To paraphase SunTzu: Don't underestimate your enemy prowess for that way breeds arrogance.

The Chinese are trying to create a first world military. I agree they have a way to go and it takes a long time to address a training system that addresses the training of millions of basically peasants but they are attempting that. And they are learning everday. We haven't heard the last from China.

"Snip"

Disparage away. I have no operational experience that proves this point, and unless I had compared both weapons sets under identical conditions, it would be irrelevant.
You may see no discussion, but that is exactly the discussion I have been involved in for the last 8 years. In relation to infantry science it is what I do.

Okay...

In the real world there are little possibility of such tests. However, the effect of doctrine affects the abilites of your soldiers and units. So even if the tests you want can't provide an unequivocal answer, the result of not considering the answers in the light of up to date experience can destroy you. The world is full of just such disconnects.

I'm a maverick. I see a disconnect between the theory and the factual reality. I also see a lot of evidence dismissed due to unfavoriable cosequences. We have been blessed that since Vietnam in that we have not actually fought a major war. At least one that posed a direct strain on our abilties to supply or created a direct threat to our battlefield assetments and policies. I think we have lulled ourselves into a false world that makes everything we do come out alright. Is there going to come a time we aren't going to be so fortunate?

There may be stories. Let me put it this way, in the British and Israeli armies, there are no stories, or none that indicate a trend which there a body of empirical evidence to merit attention.

The figures come from notes I took based on presentations from ARDEC and NATO Light Weapons working group.

And did these tests produce accurate, measurable and repeatable data?

The Israelies that I've talked to they found a big test to their operational policy in their missions against Lebanon and the Palistine state. I realize that they have to train for 2 types of war but they always were one of the most important testing grounds and hot beds of operational policy testing. Now they found that their pollicies aren't what they need to keep peace in their region. They also have to keep up appearances due to world opinion and present operational policies are failingin that arena too.

I know this is a big picture review and has little supposed effect on small unit tasks. However, large unit tasks are proving to be insuffient in either achieving their adjectives or being acceptable to the world opinion as a whole.

So is it going to become a small unit battle field? Are the use of heavy big units becomeing a liability? If it does, then weapons mix is going to become of primary importance. For the small unit may not be able to expect the off the board assets that are available now because the world grows less accepting of Israeli colateral damage. Just a thought. However, the Israelis admit they don't have an effective policy to counter it. And Hamas grows bolder by the day.

Having spent 3 years of my life intermittently, but actively involved in testing body armour, against a very wide range of rounds, I would submit that the terminal performance of bullets on various homogenous mediums is nearly an exact science. Reading that across into wounding is not an exact science, for very obvious reasons.

I hope you got it right for everyone's sake. The US Army shows that it has too many agenda's to overcome to be impartial about it. Starting with the Dragonskin debacle...

I am not aware of the controversy. The length of time someone can function is directly related to the time it takes them to exsanguinate, and the level of incapacity required. The wounding mechanisms are extremely well understood, if you talk to doctors.
What testing would you do? The alleged terminal effect of a given infantry round on the human body is a minor part of the factors that have to be balanced.

Yes, what you and they say is true. But no matter how many hits you get on your enemy unless you get a telling hit, your adversary could be up a while. however, Ken talked about the 1903a3 hitting a person and the person really knew he had been hit. Most people hit by a 30.06 or 7.62 NATO suffer catastrophic failure ususally due to shock. Yes, bullet placement has a lot to do with the effectiveness of the round inside the body. But no matter where the wound is, the combatant knows he's been hit and usually stays down.

Now if you want to can change the M4 to 6.5mm if you want. It will make no difference to tactics, or the effectiveness of your infantry. The same money is almost certainly better spent on training.

Wilf, I surrender. We seem to be working at cross purposes here. IMHO, you are working to make sure that Britain's military doesn't change without some real world gain from that change. A very noble occupation for I see so many cluless people try to make their point heard and accepted as much for egotism as for any real world knowledge or gain. I'm inundated with so much "cr*p" that I can find the bliss in your path.

The problem is that I don't have that ability. I have to weed through tons of drek to develop policies that will help clients who need the biggest bang for their dollar. And I have to weed through policies like the US stated requirement of Military funds given to small nations that says it must go to a American weapon system is such exist. Some counties try to get around it by building maufacturing plants in the US making their particular weapon system acceptable for those funds. Israeli is trying that with the Travor rifle among other things. Many small countries complain that the US's policy gives America too much power in these country's foriegn policies. the United States can just refuse these country's American made weapon to be used by the country in question. So what to do?

These countries have to rely on small unit tactics for they don't have a lot of financies to develope good support assets. There is more than one company that rebuilds and updates UH-1 helicopters. So you would be surprised at the number of "Huey" airframes that are still flying. Combine this with a great number of companies that are manufacturing spare parts and in some places you would think that you were back in 'Nam.

The major part I see to this is the agendas of big world nations limit the abilities of smaller impoverished countries to develope the thier own policies.

As for training, I wish what you said was a possibility but most 1st world countires seem to do neither. They find training a unreasonable expence and won't give their soldiers weapon systems to refect this. I still find use for the RPG7v2-3 because it requires little training to make a hunter killer groups effective. There are newer more efficent weapons out there but they require much more training than the small country can afford.

[AlexTX ret]

As the author of the linked article, thank you for the plug. With the 5.56mm Timeline, I'm not trying to reach any conclusions. It is meant merely as a historical record of events. When I state the findings and conclusions from a specific report, I am merely repeating what was written by the authors of that report. Everything that I use is open source, although it is not always easily found. I prefer to go back to the primary sources where ever possible. Things can get twisted as they are repeated by successive authors. Of the secondary sources, I trust Ezell and McNaugher as they worked from archival documents and started early enough to interview most of the participants while they were still alive and had reasonably fresh memories of the events.

I have been working on the Timeline for 10 years, and it is currently just shy of 600 pages in length. It really couldn't be published anywhere other than the Net as I have no pretty pictures, and the subject matter is often too esoteric to be of broad interest. However, by being on the Net, I have no constraints as to length. For instance, the publisher of the recent book "American Rifle" demanded that the author's lengthy bibliography be left out in order to save pages, and thus, reduce printing costs.

If anyone has other original documents and sources that they'd like to provide or recommend, I'd gladly take a look.

I researched the web for the best resource that I could fine that did all that could be done to answer the questions of when and why without being filled with holes caused by classified matterials and didn't have an agenda such as the 6.8 SPC vs 6.5 Grendel. I'm so glad that you put forth so much work. I hope it's okay but I've pointed many people towards your sight. Never had a complaint yet.

The fact that your work is was so specific and knowledgeable, its length was a plus. It tells some uncomfortable facts to those who would argue from any point. But in the same breath, I think your site would clear up so many misconceptions that almost any of us have.

Thank you...

[Xenophon]

I believe that optics indeed make a ton of difference, and we are in fact just starting to realize this, even if we don't know it right now. I think that problem stems (at least from the Marine Corps perspective) from the fact that our training and courses of qualication fire do not address these issues. Most rounds fired during the various combat marksmanship courses of fire in the CMP run out no further than 50m, which I think is a shambles of a training setup.

Amen! We train at 50m or less with optics that are only good at 100 or more meters and worthless for clearing rooms. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Has anyone brought up the Americanized RPG system yet?
http://www.defensereview.com/airtron...nade-launcher/

[William F. Owen]

I would like to see crew served weapons, such as the 7.62 MMG taken away fro the squad/platoon and regulate it to the company's discretion. To do that requires a change in the cartridge to something more effective than the present 5.56 round.

So why have a support weapon that is an MMG. Why not 84mm RCL?

Side effects are increased range (500m) which could be best utilized by an acceptance of optics on the individual rifleman's weapon.

If range is an issue, why assume that the infantry rifle has a role to play at over 300m? Why not give that role to other weapons?

To paraphase SunTzu: Don't underestimate your enemy prowess for that way breeds arrogance.

Can't argue. If the Chinese were a threat, they would pose a substantial one, but the quality of their infantry weapons is not the problem.

I see a disconnect between the theory and the factual reality. I also see a lot of evidence dismissed due to unfavoriable cosequences.

Well you see exactly the same two things I do.

Now they found that their pollicies aren't what they need to keep peace in their region. They also have to keep up appearances due to world opinion and present operational policies are failingin that arena too.

Israeli policy is not, and never has been about keeping peace. It is about the territorial security of the state. For those of us who live here, that is not a problem and never has been. If "operational policies" are so flawed why have Hezbollah sat on their hands for last 3 years? Do not assume the situation is as the Washington Post, the NY Times or "Blogers" see it.

However, large unit tasks are proving to be insuffient in either achieving their adjectives or being acceptable to the world opinion as a whole.

So is it going to become a small unit battle field? Are the use of heavy big units becomeing a liability? If it does, then weapons mix is going to become of primary importance.

World opinion can be effected by a small unit action, as much as a big. If you are referring to the precise, proportionate, and discriminate use of force as concerns its political impact on operations, that is a sensible discussion. I talk directly the IDF on a weekly and sometimes daily basis, and they understand the issues better than you can believe.

I hope you got it right for everyone's sake. The US Army shows that it has too many agenda's to overcome to be impartial about it. Starting with the Dragonskin debacle...

Can't say we did. The issue in body armour is not what materials can do, but what the specification states. The specification is always the issue. Not the testing. Can't comment on Dragonskin, but body armour manufacturers are generally very poor scientist and don't under specifications or testing. I could tell you horror stories, you wouldn't believe.

Most people hit by a 30.06 or 7.62 NATO suffer catastrophic failure ususally due to shock. Yes, bullet placement has a lot to do with the effectiveness of the round inside the body. But no matter where the wound is, the combatant knows he's been hit and usually stays down.

I know many men who were hit by 7.62mm NATO, and one who was hit in the chest with 30.06 and is still working today.
The only thing that can cause "catastrophic failures" is blood loss and nerve severing. Those events cause the onset of "biological shock", not the bullet.
There is no evidence (look at Facklers work) to suggest that the temporary cavitation seen mediums like ballistic gelatine, translates into an equivalent mechanism inside the body.

Wilf, I surrender. We seem to be working at cross purposes here. IMHO, you are working to make sure that Britain's military doesn't change without some real world gain from that change. A very noble occupation for I see so many cluless people try to make their point heard and accepted as much for egotism as for any real world knowledge or gain. I'm inundated with so much "cr*p" that I can find the bliss in your path.

Well I am not trying break your will on any issue, so please don't surrender. I am far from noble, and the British Military will change based on the political agenda, personalities and opinions of the day. I merely suggest logic and actual evidence as alternatives.

Israeli is trying that with the Travor rifle among other things.

It's actually Tabor, or Tavor to the white people. It's a fun little gun, and extremely popular with the troops. 3 Brigades are now equipped. I don't like bullpups, but it would be a good choice if you had to have one.

These countries have to rely on small unit tactics for they don't have a lot of financies to develope good support assets.

I'd be a bit careful assuming that there is a relationship between "small unit tactics" and funding. It strays into "justification" rather than "need."

There is more than one company that rebuilds and updates UH-1 helicopters. So you would be surprised at the number of "Huey" airframes that are still flying. Combine this with a great number of companies that are manufacturing spare parts and in some places you would think that you were back in 'Nam.

Very well aware. Big fan of the Slick, and the S-64 is still being built as well. Plus you can buy a good Mil Mi-171 for 25% of the price of Blackhawk, ship it to Israel and get it better equipped than most Apaches or UH-60's!

The major part I see to this is the agendas of big world nations limit the abilities of smaller impoverished countries to develope the thier own policies.

No one in Israel would argue with that.

[reed11b]

So why have a support weapon that is an MMG. Why not 84mm RCL?
If range is an issue, why assume that the infantry rifle has a role to play at over 300m? Why not give that role to other weapons?

That is the first time I think I have seen my small unit fire support concept validated. I prefer the 25mm "payload" rifle for versatility but old Carl or a Foglore with updated fire control would be a close second. I do feel infantry has a role past 300m however, just not the fire teams.
Reed