|
|
Post by norseman on May 22, 2018 20:50:05 GMT -5
www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdfI agree whole heartedly with this article. But Im not a combat vet, just a hunter and outdoorsman. But in Washington state a .223/5.56 round is not legal to hunt deer with.... its considered a varmint cartridge by Fish and Game. Coyotes, Bobcats, etc. A white tail deer averages 150 lbs in summer. Was watching a tactical channel today on youtube in which the former SF instructor is conducting “zipper” drills. First shot is center mass and then about the fourth round is in the T box. This drill in all seriousness is being conducted at 20 feet. Huh? We carry 5.56 now because we can carry more ammo. I sometimes think its just because it saves on shipping costs to our forces around the world. But if this SF instructor is training you to put four rounds into a bad guy at 20 feet? We are NOT carrying more rounds, we are carrying less. All previous calibers of the US arsenal all the way back to a Springfield .69 caliber rifle musket is going to put a man down hard at 20 feet. A Texas Ranger 1873 Winchester in 45 colt would stop the fight with one shot to center mass. I think the story of hill 488 demonstrates the effectiveness of the .308/7.62 round. Were they low on ammo? Yes. But obviously the rounds being fired had the respect of a vastly superior force. If they had been armed with M4s? Would they have remained? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hill_488
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant 
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 27, 2018 18:50:03 GMT -5
I will argue that there is significant bearing on the terrain you're fighting in. In Afghanistan there are a number of occasions (especially in the mountains, canyons and valleys) where the 5.56mm is far from ideal
In Vietnam engagement ranges were very close and ammo loads and consumption were significant considerations. There were no doubt situations where brush penetration was less effective than our 7.62 rounds but hit lethality definitely wasn't The high velocity tumbling round does horrible things to tissue. I was delighted to have the 300+ extra rounds in hand than I could carry for an M14.
I suspect for door kicking in the sandbox and long sweeps our modern soldiers would agree IF they had personally experienced both.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 28, 2018 14:43:52 GMT -5
It's easy to lament any weapons shortcoming. The puncb through power of the 30:06 round is legendary (as it should be) but I definitely would want to put the weight. The 7.62 of the M14 goes through walls where the 5.56 generally does not and at ranges beyond 300 meters the M14 is a better combat rifle. The M16 or variant therein has been the Army's main battle rifle longer than any other in history (by far) and with good reason. The weapon started out disastrously in Vietnam but with minor fixes to ammo and the chamber (back to Armaite specs instead of some bean counters cut corners) the "Black death" "Mattey Mattel Special"has been an amazing rifle. Is it time to be replaced? Probably!
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 1, 2018 13:14:59 GMT -5
I came in a hair too late to go to Vietnam (which in retrospect I'm extremely grateful for). When I talked to the assignments officer at Fort Benning in June '71 (his name was Captain Major, I swear to God), I asked about going to Vietnam and he said there was an 18 month waiting list of infantry lieutenants who wanted to go. He also said forget about Special Forces, they were going to fade away as we got back to facing the Russians in Germany. So what did he know.
Anyway, Vietnam had, I'm told, a lot of close up fighting because of the terrain, including ambushes. The way to defeat a close ambush (in theory) was to gain fire superiority and charge through it, which means firing on rock and roll, which was the strong point of the M16/5.56mm. The problem with the 5.56mm is that it gets it's effectiveness from high velocity and designed in instability which makes the bullet buzzsaw through the target. As the velocity drops it loses this effect and ends up drilling a .22 caliber hole through the target. At that point a .308 bullet ends up doing more damage, plus having retained more energy at distance. But there's no perfect solution. Personally, I think they erred in going to the 5.56mm. The sweet spot seems to be somewhere between 6.5mm and 7mm. The 6.5x55mm Swede cartridge has been around since the 1890's and is still highly regarded as a target and hunting cartridge, used on European elk in Scandinavia. There's a series of relatively new cartridges in that range, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC being proposed since they can be used in the M4/M16 with a barrel and bolt change and new mags. Personally I think that's a false economy, since the platform should be designed around the cartridge, not the other way around. .260 Rem and 6.5mm Creedmoor both have good long distance performance. I saw a thing the other day about SOCOM requesting proposals for an "assault machinegun" and including the 6.5 Creedmoor as a possible round. So that could be interesting. I think we're overdue for a new rifle/carbine and cartridge. The M16 family is basically a good weapon, but there's been a lot of developments in the last 60 years. The Marines pulled kind of a fast one, adopting a modified HK 416 as the M27 IAR. Now they've announced that all their combat troops are going to get a variant of the M27. But realistically, a major changeover for the Army is probably not going to happen until there's a practical caseless or telescoped polymer case cartridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 1, 2018 14:34:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 4, 2018 16:38:59 GMT -5
Just pondering the proposition "outgunned and outclassed." I don't know if that really holds true. Experiences in Iraq and particularly Afghanistan seem to indicate that the 5.56mm doesn't cut it at longer ranges. But most of the other side are carrying AK variants firing 7.62x39mm or (I don't know how common it is) 5.45x39mm cartridges which aren't any better than the 5.56mm at longer ranges. The problem is (as I understand it) guys up on the ridges with machineguns or Dragunov sniper rifles firing the Russian 7.62x54mm full power cartridge, roughly equivalent to the 7.62 Nato, which outranges the 5.56mm. Perhaps the solution in open terrain is to increase the number of designated marksmen equipped with something like the M110 SASS (semi-automatic sniper system).
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 5, 2018 2:01:12 GMT -5
I had a Govt gig facilitating discussions with Veterans returning from the sandbox early in the War on terror. The feedback on weapons, equipment and Leadership was remarkably positive. Honestly I have never known members of the military to be so upbeat. All discussions were candid and while they knew I was ex military they knew I was on a civilian contract so no concerns with repercussions. They for the most part liked the M4 but their favorite weapons were the old standbys. The M14 punched through mud walls and had greater ange, they liked the .45 better than the m9s and all loved the Ma Deuce. The only modern weapon (after my time) that was enthusiasti call raves about was the Mk19 grenade launcher. Ballistic gear though uncomfortable and heavy was much appreciated. The night vision gear a big hit and the desert boot well liked. The then goofy colored camo was not liked by the Army who liked the Marines field uniform better and wanted the multi can which is now being worn commonly. I haveneverheard Enlisted praise officers and ncos other then rare examples but these men and women did. This was 10+ years ago but it was still quite interesting. I interviewed over 200 individuals so a pretty sizeable sample.
It would be interesting to compare were such a project be repeated. (It probably is)
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 5, 2018 22:48:32 GMT -5
Whoever pushed through that "Universal Camouflage Pattern" with the color scheme that only works in sage brush and concrete parking garages should have been court-martialed. They'd have saved a ton of money if they just copied the Marines or went with Multi-cam to start with. I read that in testing the early versions of Multi-cam out scored UCP in testing, but someone decided they wanted UCP. I also read recently that the Army has something like 17 million pieces of field gear in UCP and they're soliciting proposals to dye it to a shade close to the base color of Multi-cam.
|
|
Dracul
Master sergeant
Posts: 1,341 
|
Post by Dracul on Jun 15, 2018 15:22:21 GMT -5
From what I was told by Soldiers was that while Multicam beat out UCP in all tests, using Multicam would have come to be more expensive because of licensing and royalties. Multicam was developed by a private individual (who was a former Soldier himself), and not internally in the Army. I don't know if the developer was asking for much or not, but that was a bad move regardless on the US army.
I, too, heard they were dying UCP field gear to something similar to coyote brown. Haven't heard anything since.
On topic of the outgunned. I was in the Marines, and while I wasn't deployed in a combat zone, a lot of the Iraq and Afghan vets (standard infantry) spoke in disgust of the standard rounds. The 5.56 and 9mm. No one liked them, 5.56 just didn't have the range and stopping power of the 7.62. Especially towards the middle of the war where the enemies would fire from positions out of the range of our guys. Also because there were cases of enemies getting high on drugs and were able to withstand 5.56 and 9mm gun shots and kept on attacking. When it came to the weapons, the M9 wasn't liked too much. When I did extreme cold weather training, the instructors told the unit to not even bring them, because they wouldn't work in the cold.
IIRC, the Marines are considering or actually doing so by now, at least switching handguns over to a .45 platform. Something like a more modernized 1911, but I haven't really been keeping up to date.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 26, 2018 20:53:51 GMT -5
Bitching about weapons gear and craving what you don't have is a military tradition thousands of years old. Universal praise is quite rare but usually only happens when there is significant advantage over the item it replaced or the enemies counterpart. Even when the improvement is glaring peoples natural resistance to something new means the emotional adoption might take awhile. The M1 Garand is a case of a well liked weapon although initially generals and soldiers alike wanted to cling to their Springfields.
The 1911 is iconic and absolutely powerful and intimidating but the reality is 90% of the soldiers marines and sailors who were issued them couldn't hit anything with them. As a safety officer at .45 range events multiple cycles how bad people are with this pistol is mind boggling. Unintended victims and the shooter themselves had as much to fear as the pop up targets. Much of the bitching is misguided while much is spot on. The challenge for military planners is to sort out whats valid and whats not. Often confidence in a weapon is more important that its actual ability. Hence training propaganda which actually has a place as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 3, 2018 3:21:06 GMT -5
Speaking strictly as a gun guy and hunter/mule skinner who has killed lots of game?
I own two M4’s. I dont like the cartridge other than cost. I find it weak. My .22-250 bolt action rifle does do a swell job on Coyotes, Bobcats, etc. Its also pushing the same bullet a 1000 fps faster. And I have no use for a direct impingement system. Introducing the gases directly into the chamber is a big mistake. A gas piston system is superior and a variable gas piston system like found on the FAL is best. As the gun gets dirty and starts to fowl, in a pinch, you simply turn a valve on the gas block to send more gas to the piston. If the M4’s military role is take the place of a Thompson or other sub machine gun? I think thats fine. Its small, light, capable of full auto, very controllable. Sure. Makes sense. Tankers, medics, mechanics and other support roles. If it was me I would still convert them all to 6.5 grendel or 6.8 SPC, as Volk mentioned.
I own two 1911’s, both Springfield armory. Ive tried Glocks and Sigs and other pistols and all I can say is there is a reason the ole venerable 1911 still dominates IPSC. Its the trigger...... Most modern pistols trigger pull feels like your pulling on a mushy banana. The only trigger better than a Colt 1911 is a Colt 1873. Of course modern pistols are double stacked.....everyone now wants 15+ rounds in a pistol. Im also not a fan of polymer.
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 3, 2018 21:20:46 GMT -5
Interesting historical fact: Both Italy and Japan adopted a 6.5mm cartridge when they switched to modern rifles in the 1890's. The Italians had the 6.5x52mm Carcano and the Japanese the 6.5x50mm Arisaka. They both decided in the 1930's to go to a .30 caliber cartridge because they felt the 6.5's were inadequate, particularly at long range. The Japanese went to the 7.7x58mm, which was about equal to the .303 Brit, while the Italians went to the 7.35x51mm, but they were too late converting, already had massive stocks of rifles and cartridges, and most Italian soldiers ended up with the older cartridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 4, 2018 11:21:48 GMT -5
Here's a discussion on "Forgotten Weapons" of the Carcano M38 TS carbine that was produced in 7.35mm. Generally held in low regard, Ian makes a case that it was actually a practical and effective weapon for what it was intended for (much like the M1 Carbine). www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lJZPF_fJQ&t=913s |
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 4, 2018 11:23:49 GMT -5
Also, the FAL was first chambered in .280 British. Looking at that short fat casing and long streamlined BT bullet is like looking into the future. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_BritishI think 6.5-7 mm is optimal. (.256-.284) |
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 4, 2018 12:33:21 GMT -5
Added, the US military had a fit over the .280 and insisted that NATO stick with a .30 caliber cartridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 4, 2018 14:27:36 GMT -5
You couldn't blame the Brits for being sore about that. They even produced a modified .280 cartridge that had the same head size as the .30-06, called the .280-30, that could have been used in the M1 Garand and the BAR with just a barrel change. It's kind of interesting to consider a modified Garand firing .280 with the barrel trimmed back to 18-20 inches. It would probably have been better suited to our small statured Asian allies than full size, full power M1's.
And then after insisting our Nato allies go to a .30 caliber cartridge we turn around and adopt a marginal medium power one.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jul 4, 2018 14:45:52 GMT -5
Lots of emotion, politics and financial rather than a motivation for military effectiveness go into these decisions which often leave the war fighters on the sticky end of old Duke!I
"Not invented here" is a sad driver of resistance to better ideas and that probabky more than anything else impedes excellence.
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 4, 2018 15:23:06 GMT -5
I think this is perfection (long range, entry, speed, reliabilty, modularity) except chambered in 6.5 creedmoor, which is available. The 6.5 creedmoor has almost the same ballistics as a .300 win mag at 1000 yards. This is doable. We spend billions on B2 bombers and stealth cruisers. Our soldiers, sailors and marines deserve something better. youtu.be/NRFmM1zbEcA |
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 4, 2018 19:57:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 4, 2018 23:12:13 GMT -5
Lots of emotion, politics and financial rather than a motivation for military effectiveness go into these decisions which often leave the war fighters on the sticky end of old Duke!I "Not invented here" is a sad driver of resistance to better ideas and that probabky more than anything else impedes excellence. Very true. But of course now the shoe is on the other foot. The SA 80 is very unpopular with the British military. And elite units like the SAS do not use them. |
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 4, 2018 23:12:39 GMT -5
Absolutely a ray of hope! |
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 5, 2018 10:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 5, 2018 10:32:20 GMT -5
One thing they left out on their model was the rib cage. A light, high velocity bullet striking bone can be deflected in unpredictable ways. It could make the wound worse, as bone splinters become secondary "shrapnel." Or the bullet could be deflected away from the heart and lungs.
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 5, 2018 12:39:03 GMT -5
Sure. And at 30 ft the test fire guy should have been able to put three in the heart. I think they were trying to replicate the Platoon scene and shot placement. But I have watched Columbian ground squirrel take a hit from a .223 and still crawl off into their holes to die! Of course FMJ stinks for a hunting round, but its much cheaper to buy it in bulk. Than say a Barnes X expanding hunting bullet. Now that I think about it, I may not be giving it a fair shake. But the force of violence from the .22-250 is noticeable. At 1000 fps faster the squirrel grenades into chunks.
If you guys ever want to come out to the ranch for some target practice (and save my pastures) just let me know!
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 11, 2018 9:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 11, 2018 10:43:40 GMT -5
To paraphrase something often said of nuclear fusion power, "The Army is going to wait for the next generation of infantry rifles, and always will be waiting."
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 11, 2018 13:13:56 GMT -5
To paraphrase something often said of nuclear fusion power, "The Army is going to wait for the next generation of infantry rifles, and always will be waiting." LOL! Well I hope they take the lead here..... |
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 11, 2018 14:05:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 11, 2018 15:28:27 GMT -5
I wonder how long it will be before rail gun technology is shrunk down to a infantry weapon. Could you imagine just charging your weapon, or changing batteries, and dumping inert round projectiles into a hopper of some sort? Not unlike a AEG. science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun.htm |
|
|
|
Post by norseman on Jul 13, 2018 14:26:46 GMT -5
|
|
