Which one... the .223 or the .308?Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ
Back in the 1970s there was a memoir of the OSS and CIA entitled Germans by one George Bailey, probably a pseudonym. It stated that on V-E day in 1945 there was an OSS team in Prague that included Eugene Fodor, author of the 1960s Fodor's Guide handbooks for American tourists in the countries of Europe. The OSS team also included an enlisted guy who was an old crown prince of the Romanov dynasty.
The book said a group of Soviet soldiers were intrigued to be able to have a conversation with one of their princes, but a self-important U.S. Army colonel butted into the discussion and insisted that he being the ranking officer, the translators present should ignore the enlisted man and tell the Russians the things that he had to say. The translators obliged, and what ensued was one of those "When the general and I were in the whorehouse the other night" kind of discussions. The colonel couldn't understand why the Russian soldiers were laughing at the wrong times.
Those of a conspiratorial mind might want to speculate on how it was that the author of the most popular series of guidebooks for American tourists in Europe in the 1960s was a former OSS guy with CIA associations. "Bill and Susan Smith operate a very nice bed and breakfast in Oxford which I highly recommend ... " It may have been a way of keeping track of American tourists in Europe at the time.
Last edited by Pete; 02-10-2011 at 01:29 AM. Reason: Typos and addendum.
Which one... the .223 or the .308?
This response to Wilf of 19 June 2010 refers
From the The British Army Review Number 150 we read the following in the article Donkeys led by Lions:
OK, problem belatedly identified. Now wait and watch for the reaction...Were 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. The weight of protection and firepower also induces some unusual and undesirable combat behaviour.
I would choose 10 inches barrel in .223 and 13 or 16 inches barrel in .308. I really liked the shape, weight, cocking handle, safety selector, bolt catch, mag release, pistol grip, buttstock, behaviour during shooting, ambidextrousness (does this word exist?), reliability etc., basically whole weapon system was excellent, no matter what caliber. I also liked the FN guy.
Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 02-10-2011 at 05:10 PM.
Thank you jcustis, it's good to see a familiar face (err...name).
On the issue of being overloaded, while we still carry too much gear in my opinion, we have come leaps and bounds from when I first started deploying as a young LCPL. My first tour, where we relieved 1/8 after they were chewed up in Fallujah, it was common to find a Marine with 12-15 magazines on his body, as well as grenades, flashbangs, camelback, and whatever else we could drape over ourselves. And that was just on our Interceptor vests, leaving out the daypack most of us carried for crew served ammo and more water. While this set up worked for the Marines who were slugging it out in the Jolan, we operated in a much larger AO and required speed and agility, neither of which we had. We were not hunters, but armored turtles.
Today, plate carriers abound and I don't allow anyone in my platoon to carry more than 8 magazines on their second line kit (I myself stick to 6). While there is still a tendency to carry more than we need (side plates on anything but a raid/mounted operation sticks out), at least the men are analyzing their gear needs. Much of this weight cutting is done counter to requirements that come down from on high, but at least the common sense seems to exists at company level and below.
That brings me to a point that Ken White made about the inability of lower level leaders to make decisions that in past wars were made by men of the same position. Whether it be dropping equipment for certain missions, or modifying the number of men on patrol, today's Officers and NCO's at the company level and below can rarely make these decisions. And when they do, it is almost always in direct violation of some requirement from higher. This has created an entire generation of leaders who have plenty of combat experience, yet very little in what you could call "outside the box" thinking. What is sad here is that "outside the box" these days would involve sending out a rifle squad, sans armor, for a few days to hunt around the hills. When I read about the actions of infantrymen in past wars, it seems as though this kind of activity would not require the approval of a brigade commander. But today, I know of few company commanders who would risk their careers by approving this kind of activity without asking permission.
The result here is that almost all (almost being the operative word) conventional units, no matter what their supposed specialties, are relegated to very simplistic mounted and dismounted patrols. Anything else, and you'd better have "Special" before your unit name.
I realize I am generalizing here, but when I read about Marine CAP platoons in Vietnam spending months running their own operations with not so much as a Sergeant or Staff Sergeant running the show, it's frustrating to watch Captains unable to have the same leeway. Remember, Herman Hanneken snuck into an enemy camp and assassinated Peralte, when he was still an enlisted man. While I don't advocate Corporals taking off alone and killing people, I think it's a good benchmark to show how much we have been stifled by bureaucracy and risk aversion.
And without that type of flexability of the lower enlisted the US military has lost a large part of its ability to fight. In the cold war days the inflexable command structure of the Soviet Army was the first thing we were trained to attack so as to paralize their ability to move. We were told if we had no orders and didn't know what to do find something to attack don't sit on our ass and wait for orders or wonder what to do.
BTW I have no problem an enlisted man taking out some bad guy if it is the right thing to do and circumstances dictate it. Why wait for orders and pass up an oppurtunity?
You have an opinion on the calibre issue?
Yes, I do, but it would take probably longer discussion... (especially for what purpose it would serve).
My army is now buying the CZ 805 rifles with interchangable barrel/caliber (.223 and 7,62x39), and SCAR ended second. Personally I would certainly prefer SCAR, and have my opinion on whole affair, but I canīt affect it.
If you would like to talk about calibre issue into the depth, pls PM me. (I am no expert, but I am interested in shooting and have some ideas and experiences.)
No surprise there that the contract would go to a Czech company.
On the calibre issue nothing worth taking to PM. The fact that it was deemed necessary to have the ability to switch calibres through a quick change barrel system indicates that the debate at national level has not been resolved and they want to keep their options open.
I'm sure it will be of interest to all to hear what the official Czech opinion is on the issue and also yours personally if it differs.
CZ makes certainly some fine firearms.
Just curious. How is that CZ 805 stock? It seems to be quite interesting, being foldable, having an adjustable lenght of pull and an addable cheek piece.
Seems that stocks like that are becoming more and more the norm, which is IMHO a good thing if the hold up.
Stock was one of the things that was pointed out during the recent field tests, for me it seemed too "competition" and not too "army". Imagine throwing buttstock full of holes and screws into the mud, you would clean it forever. I think the current one will be fine, itīs similar to SCAR stock, and I guess a bit lighter.
Thanks. We will have to see if the "competition" stock will hold up the "army" time.
BTW Beretta is on a pretty similar route with their "carabina futura". I do like folding stocks and I do think adjusting the lenght of pull is a good idea. Even an addable or raisable cheek piece is helpful for normal scopes which are mounted a bit higher. But will the designers come to a soldier-proof solution?
CZ805 vs. SCAR
First is old stock, below is the new one.
Thanks. Somehow it seems that the external look of the conventional "future" Nato rifles becomes more and more similar. Not saying that this is a bad thing, and in this area the experiences of the Afghan war have certainly played a big role, especially for countries with deployed units.
Standardization is in many a technical area a good thing. Mounting optics and other stuff has certainly never been easier.
---------------------------------------
Personally I do find it interesting to see that during WWI the squads became far more diverse. Training was partly specialized, with bombers, grenadiers, scouts/snipers/observers, automatic riflemen. machinegunners etc with the rifleman usually supporting them. Defensive patrols differed from fighting patrols, scouting parties from trench raiders or assault units. No hard and fast rules about their composition were set in late WWI.
So I took my two youngest daughters the local used bookstore and what do I find but a very good condition copy of War Department's FM 7-10, Infantry Field Manual, Rifle Company, Rifle Regiment, June 2, 1942.
From some basic google strings, it looks like I made out and picked up something with much greater value than what I paid (but yet the Paladin Press pamphlet on ambushes was highway robbery!).
Anyway, I open the manual to a random page, and what a jinx:
from pg 139.The front cover of the FM is signed by a C. J. Fox, and it seems to have been sold for 40 cents at some point. Sometimes the amateur bibliophile is rewarded with a gem. I am going to put this one away in a cool, dark place, and brush up on the contents via the online version I found here:4) The automatic rifleman supports the rapid advance of other members of the squad from flank positions. Because of the difficulty of maintaining an adequate supply of ammunition, the fire of automatic rifles is conserved to the actual needs of the situation. Thus, when the fires of individual riflemen serve to accomplish the desired effect, they are used in preference to the automatic rifle.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...-10/index.html
That was still the Marine approach in 1950.
It was also one more reason many BAR Men converted their weapons from slow and fast rate full auto to semi and full auto, a move that also got rid of almost a pound of weight. Weight reduction was further aided by ditching the bipod and carrying handle...
Why?
The SCAR (as good as it no doubt is) is a designer rifle. As has been written:First is old stock, below is the new one.
OK, so the SCAR was designed for special forces by special forces."The purpose of the program, titled SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle), was to develop a new rifle designed for SOF by SOF, with operator input required in the initiation, generation, testing and selection of the new system."
But what of the line infantry? Why do the line infantry (these days) end up with crappy peashooters like the M4 and the SA80?
... and what would be the principle differences between a SOF weapon and that of a standard line infantry issue?
Only difference between SF and infantry in the matter of assault rifles I see in caliber and barrel lenght (SF should have the infantry standard issue rifle, plus the same with shorter barrel and/or different caliber, due to the fact that they have some similar, but some different tasks than infantry, like hostage rescue, VIP protection etc., where .308 caliber, which I suppose to be the best for infantry, would not be the best for the task). Also SF rifle needs details like ability to carry a supressor. But SCAR rifles have all these options, thatīs the reason I see SCAR rifle as the best choice for whole army, even if it was developed for SOF purpose. I see every day in job that everybody and his dog wants to call himself SF (cooks, staff officers, logistic guys are experts on this), but thatīs another story. Reliability, simplicity, accuracy, easy maintenance are the same principles for everybody.
PS: I agree that M4 is not the best rifle, but itīs not bad either. Itīs light and accurate, and if you choose right manufacturer, it is also reasonably reliable. SA80 is heavy, and usable only for right shoulder - or at least it used to be, I am not sure about the newest version. On the other hand, I like the safety selector, and cocking handle is definately better designed than in AR15 family.
Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 02-20-2011 at 09:56 AM.
Usually the stock is made to fit the median soldier, and large and small guys would profit from a better fitting stock. If you add body armor things can get very difficult for the smaller soldiers. Lenght of pull is greatly influenced by body shape, clothing and body armor, so it is perhaps the most worthy of the hassle to making it adjustable.
I think Bushranger called that stock "competition" because for example in biatholon the stocks are individually shaped and adjustable to fit the shooter in question.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks