Stars And Stripes Article

1

10-96

New member
Ugh, they're at it again. This isn't a drive-by, but something I've spent quite a bit of time in ponderance over. An article in the Stars And Stripes (re)visits the M4/M16 issue. Says it isn't good enough at extended ranges. Heard that one before. Says the round is too weak at extended ranges. Near the bottom of the article, it finally hits close to what my thoughts have been- an issue of bbl length or ctg selection. Varmint hunters have favored longer bbls for years- right? How has that escaped GAO and the other influential bean counters?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AFGHANISTAN_BULLET_WARS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-05-21-04-41-59
Now, I don't personally want to put a dog in the fight as I've never carried the M4 in a combat theater- just the A2. I understand the shorter rifle is handier and adequate for it's use- but why didn't they put a carbine stock on the A2's or A3's? And, is there a possibility that a yet again new ctg will emerge? What are some ya'lls thought on possible fixes, options, or replacements?
 
B

blume357

New member
the British at the time of the American revolution carried

muskets who's barrels had no rifling.... and in their commands there was no call to aim... just fire. My point is the military rifle evolves and is always a compromise.
 
T

TX Hunter

New member
I have heard that The US is pulling out some old M14 Rifles, dusting them off and putting them back in service.

I am A USMC Veteran, I served from 1991 to 1995, I never had to fire a shot, but did enter hostile territory in 1994, while evacuating the UN from Somalia. We carried M16A2 Service Rifles,(Well Actually I carried a M249 Saw)
During my tour of duty, I never liked the M-16 and hoped that one day our troops would be issued a better rifle chambered in 7.62x51 again.
I am glad to know that my thinking was not that far off.
 
L

Loader9

New member
In an Aberdeen report, they concluded that the actual hits IN COMBAT were less than 20% at 100 yds and most hits occurred at about 50 yds. The length of the barrel was made all too clear in the jungles of the Pacific in WWII where the Garand and 03A3 were a pain to deal with because of the length of the weapon. That's why a lot of the guys liked the 30 carbine- short and agile.The range also determined that a 30 caliber was not necessary. What's happening is that they have chosen a service rifle designed as a short range weapon and are now attempting to make it a long range sniper. That's kinda like using a motorcycle to pull a boat trailer.
They've been rebuilding the old M14's for several years now and reissuing them in Iraq while picking up the 5.56 rifles. Considering that the priority is now on drone warfare, I highly doubt you'll see any energy put into a different cartridge or rifle. When you can have a machine doing the job of a platoon and exposing no one to harm except the enemy and can drop ordinance that will take out the many or the one, why worry about a service rifle.
 
R

RT

New member
The M4 is fine. If we need to engage targets at 300m or longer we should use something like DMRs, MGs or mortars or air support.

"Carbines and rifles work out to a certain range. After which, you have crew-served. After which you have mortars. After which, you have direct fire and indirect fire artillery. After which you have theater indirect, After which you have strat bombers and ICBMs.

Attempting to stretch your carbine range to crew-served/mortar range is stupid, especially at the expense of mobility and training."
 
L

LloydXmas250

New member
Now I'm definitely no expert and not really making a suggestion but more of a question. Would a weapon like the ACR be able to handle this type of a situation? The easy barrel/caliber change seems like you could get the long range needed and then if you had a closer engagement throw the 5.56 barrel back on. Would something like that help out or should they just know which weapons to use where and match troops with the weapons they need for their specific area?
 
T

Te Anau

New member
Latest assault on the M4....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_bullet_wars

"KABUL, Afghanistan – The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s."
Click to expand...

The article continues in more detail.Hopefully this isn't already posted.I didn't see it.
 
O

Old Grump

Member in memoriam
DMR or a good man with a M14, tough decision, One is a modified varmint gun and the other is an accurate large bore long range rifle. Yup, tough decision and cheaper than firing a mess of 50 caliber rounds out of a machine gun. Easier to carry too.
 
P

p99guy

New member
Same thing happened to the Soviets..AK's were not a good match against tribesmen with mausers and Enfields. So much so they started reissueing a Mosin Nagant 91/30 or two to every squad. Its history repeating its self.
 
R

rickyrick

New member
Getting in an out of vehicle without the rifle getting all tangled up was always a big pain...

I am sure with todays armored trucks and more body armor intensifies the problem....

sounds like the modular weapon idea is the answer, just switch out uppers.
 
B

BGutzman

New member
In my personal experience I was not a fan of the M16A1 or the M16A2 (but I do like the A2's over the A1) while on active duty.

Yes the M4 and the M16A1/A2 can do the intended job but if I had my preference I would have chosen something with a larger round. I had several conversations with other soldiers in Afganistan who held similar thoughts.

Problem is the military wants a rifle everyone can shoot and its one of those compromise factors when it comes to the 5.56mm.

Smaller rounds tend to be easier to shoot because the less mass the round has the easier the recoil tends to be (E=MC2).

Weapon length is another one of those things.... Longer barrel more accurate at range but the shorter the barrel the easier to carry and easier to force entry a BG's house.
 
S

SIGSHR

New member
The SMLE and the M1903 were developed in part to find a shoulder arm that both the infantry and cavalry could carry and simplify weapons procurement and it was found with smokeless powder that the longer barrels did not increase MV that much-not enought to make a difference. The Ross Rifle was found to be too long and clumsy in Flanders.
I am not a fan of the M-16 and its descendants, and I carried and used one in 1968-1969. I recall a comment made by Jeff Cooper. In response to a reader's letter asking about a federal agency's attempt to find a more efficient
round for the 2.5" S&W M-19s it issued, the Colonel said "Yes, you're so right-why mess with trick bullets in a small bore?"
The M-1 Carbine was originally designed to replace or at least suplement the pistol and is a good weapon for someone whose main function is to do something else. The 5.56 round reflects the military doctrine that the main thing is to inflict a casualty and not kill. The Italians and the japanese both found that their 6.5MM cartridges lack range and were unsatisfactory in machine guns.
I would like to see the M-14 revived and reissued. One advantage of it in urban warfare is if you have subdue someone and deadly force is not warranted a butt stroke to their head-or other parts of their anatomy-gets their attention PDQ.
 
H

Head-Space

Moderator
How about the grim irony that no one seems to discuss? Tactically in warfare it requires greater enemy resources to wound them rather than kill them. Seems too like the Dept. of Defense is stuck on two options: 5.56 mm. or 7.62 mm. In the meantime, the good ol' boys out in the woods have learned about calibers like .243 and .270, .25 - 06.

Troops in Viet Nam appreciated the AK-47 for its reliability, but also in jungle firefights with the 5.56, the bullets would ricochet off the foliage. Charlie's 122 gr. 30 cal bullet sliced through all that.

Let's note too that a lot of US units are using 45 ACP, because the 9mm has obvious limitations. Or we should maybe consider a Glock 22 in 40 S&W, as used by LEO's pretty much universally?

"But the Glock doesn't have a safety!" They whine.

"Don't pull the trigger unless you want to fire the gun." :eek:
 
H

Head-Space

Moderator
Stars & Stripes, Yahoo News -- Wire services like UPI and AP (United Press International, Associated Press) develop stories and media outlets publish them in syndication. This may be the same wire service story run by two outlets. And now the links are posted here. This is how stories go "viral."

Afghanistan seems particularly adapted to long-range rifle use. But then again so would the desert terrain of Iraq. On a more personal note, when I'm "outdoors in the boonies" the AK is available, but I really like having a scoped 30-06.
 
N

NWCP

New member
The military has the ability to go to the .308 in an AR, platform, or a synthetic stock M14. The M4 isn't going away anytime soon, but squads have a need for the .308 as the situation arises and long distance shooting is required. Outposts could be armed with the 7.62x51 while urban patrols would still carry the M4.
 
F

FrankenMauser

New member
The military has the ability to go to the .308 in an AR, platform, or a synthetic stock M14. The M4 isn't going away anytime soon, but squads have a need for the .308 as the situation arises and long distance shooting is required. Outposts could be armed with the 7.62x51 while urban patrols would still carry the M4.
Click to expand...

Why can't we just compromise, and give everyone a Marlin 336 in .30-30?
 
B

BlueTrain

New member
Sounds like there wasn't anything else to write about that day.

There is always, apparently, the idea that the infantryman's rifle is supposed to do everything: engage targets at 300 yards, fire full auto, and weigh less than an M1 carbine. But there must be some reason we also use pistols, sniper rifles and machine guns. Besides, how many soldiers could achieve consistent hits at 300+ yards?

There is also the idea that the enemy always has better weapons but come on, a Mauser or Lee-Enfield bolt action? Why not point out how much better the knock down power of a Martini is? And how wasteful all those automatic weapons are.
 
K

kodiakbeer

Moderator
The Taliban is largely armed with AK47/74's, it's just that they've finally figured out not to engage our troops at close or intermediate range because doing so is akin to stepping on an express elevator to Allah.

So, now they are arming some guys with older battle rifles and engaging at long range. They're adapting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top