http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201...hanistan_bullet_wars

Peter.

Just proves to me that the perfect urban assault rifle, CQB rifle and long range rifle is not the same. It isn't any different than hunting whitetails in the brush and speed goats in Wyoming. Every rifle is a compromise of some sort, don't make too much out of this. It would be worse to be shooting 350 yards with an AK. They just need a few more of the semi-auto 7.62 SASS rifles in Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
Just proves to me that the perfect urban assault rifle, CQB rifle and long range rifle is not the same. It isn't any different than hunting whitetails in the brush and speed goats in Wyoming. Every rifle is a compromise of some sort, don't make too much out of this. It would be worse to be shooting 350 yards with an AK. They just need a few more of the semi-auto 7.62 SASS rifles in Afghanistan.

Or an M1 Garand with a scope ?

Didn't they use them (M1 Garands) in Iraq with great effect ?


.

+1 to the tenth power.

I thought this problem was resolved with the advent of the 6.8 SPC. What ever happened to that?

quote:

Originally posted by Rub Line:
I thought this problem was resolved with the advent of the 6.8 SPC. What ever happened to that?

SOCOM only ?

The quick fix would be to issue 20" barreled M 16's with 77gr ammo, ACOG sights, and be sure all the guns are SIGHTED IN PROPERLY.

Then issue all the better shooters a 308 semiauto with a good scope. [M 14 or a 308 AR]

NE that is exactly what the article said! They had cut the barrels down to 14" and lost a lot of velocity. How much I don't know.
Peter.

Nothing wrong with the M4, other than it's too short barrel.

Caliber-every one of them has issues, dependent on application (that's why we have more than one wrench in the tool box as well).

I agree-if you want the 556 to be your primary/sole weapon, then insure you are tossing as heavy a bullet as you can reasonably use at approx 24-2500 FPS STRIKING velocity. Ball and OTM (BTHP) bullets at this impact velocity or above (if M855 or common match spec BTHPs (Nosler, Hornady and Sierra specifically) penetrate roughly 2 inches, then yaw, fragment and penetrate to a max of about 13-15 inches in gelatin, combat wounds are very impressive....

The USMC recently has contracted for a mono-metal bullet (not a frangible, but much more like a standard hunting design-you can look it up online) which penetrate barriers (car glass, sheet metal, light contruction) better than FMJs, wounds like a close-in shot with 55-77 grain ball or OTM and is "green" to boot (unless copper alloy is soon to be designated "bad"; not that I care about that aspect in this regards).

To sum, an AR in 556 with a 20 inch barrel, carbine rear-end and a component friendly upper/foreend is about as ideal for CQB to 400m as you can find, and is perhpas more usable than a sub-gun or a full-caliber (30ish) to boot.

Of course, opinions will vary, this one is mine. I have some expereince in this suject from which I base my position.

I am looking closely at the 6mm/223 (6x45) as an alternate as well-maybe a 25/223 would be even more interesting.... Full mag capacity, better mass and nearly as high mid-range energy/velocity as a heavy 223. The 556 case won't handle much more than that in caliber/velocity though, I think.

Best;

The .223 round was something Stoner had little money to develop. He was selling that rifle to the Air Force. As I recall it was to replace the M1 Carbine.

Prior to WWII, it took an act by Army Chief of Staff MacArthur to kill the 276 Pederson. This was an excellent round and anticipated the need for a round with less recoil but still had excellent lethality all the way to 1000 yards.

Post WWII, the Army wanted a 30-06 short, which became the 7.62 Nato. An excellent round but heavy and a lot of recoil.

The British had a much better round, something that was slightly less powerful than the 276 Pederson.

If the Army had adopted the 276 Pederson in 1936, it is likely we would still have an effective round in our primary service rifle.

Instead the .223, put together on a shoe string budget, will stay in inventory for decades to come.

ok ,this is a professional matter ,but i can resolve this for you asking would you use a rifle on 223 for hunting a 70 kilos animal in windy condition in the mountains -expected long shots-and thick skinned -they carry the aks mags in the chest so you need penetretation too-the response even from the most inexperienced operators would be not ,so ....
On respect to the m4 for CQB i agree its excellent and better than the mp5 ,in certain cirsunstances,and the injures produced by the 5.56 are really bad for us the surgeons ,but it must be used for CQB or not more than 200 mts.
I respect DR FACKLER as hes the foremost authority on wound ballistics.
The 6.8spc would be a great round ,i never tested the RCBD AMMO but i heard in a recent invitational hunt in POLAND BY NORMA that they are the thing to come...
Juan Pablo Pozzi ZURBRIGGEN MD.

I do not think the 6.8 is the answer...

I also do not think that any cartridge that can be shot in the current AR platform is the answer.

There is just not enough powder capacity in an AR length cartridge to give adequate results at long range... IMHO of course...

The current problem stems from the modification of the 20" M 16 into a short barreled "entry" rifle, the M4.

I have used as a "work gun" on entrys M 16's in 20", 16" 14" and 11".

For Indoor work, I liked the 11 inch best, but for "field" use I would not want to go under 16 inches, and would prefer 20".

However past 300 yards, a 308 is the best current option for US forces.

If you can thing back, when US forces went into Afgan. from the north, you saw a lot of M 14's on TV...

[Also looking back farther still, when the SEALS went into Kuwait, they most all had full size M 14's...].

It is a balance between proper training and proper rifle choice.

quote:

However past 300 yards, a 308 is the best current option

Yes!
But this is my favourite assault rifle.
http://www.mg-42.net/images/G3/g305.jpg

Martin

Martin

The H&K 91 is my favorite Battle Rifle as well.

I have also used one as a work gun, and I have killed deer and antelope with one as well.

quote:

I agree-if you want the 556 to be your primary/sole weapon, then insure you are tossing as heavy a bullet as you can reasonably use at approx 24-2500 FPS STRIKING velocity

Last june I had the opportunity to chronograph (Oeheler M43) US LC04 M855 from a 11" M4, a 16" M4 and a 20" M16A4. All had 7" twists.

The 11" M4 had a velocity of 2641 fps and given the 24-2500 fps minimum (proven to be correct) then the 11" M4 drops below that at 60 - 70 meters.

The 16" M4 had a velocity of 2940 fps and went below the minimum velocity around 175 Meters.

The 20" M16A4 had a velocity of 3090 fps and fell below the minimum velocity around 250 meters.

While I never necessarily felt undergunned with my M16A2 I refused to carry the M4 after my initial experience with them when first issued back in my SF days. I also prefered the M14 and many times deployed with one (many times and SF perogative). I now have 2 M1As and 2 1/2 ARs (all with 20" barrels). If I go out the door in a SHTF scenario it is the M1A going with me.

"Better than Master Card or VISA, accepted worldwide.....7.62 NATO, never leave home without it!"

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:
The .223 round was something Stoner had little money to develop. He was selling that rifle to the Air Force. As I recall it was to replace the M1 Carbine.

Prior to WWII, it took an act by Army Chief of Staff MacArthur to kill the 276 Pederson. This was an excellent round and anticipated the need for a round with less recoil but still had excellent lethality all the way to 1000 yards.

Post WWII, the Army wanted a 30-06 short, which became the 7.62 Nato. An excellent round but heavy and a lot of recoil.

The British had a much better round, something that was slightly less powerful than the 276 Pederson.

If the Army had adopted the 276 Pederson in 1936, it is likely we would still have an effective round in our primary service rifle.

Instead the .223, put together on a shoe string budget, will stay in inventory for decades to come.

the 276 Pederson is pretty much the 7/08... actually a 300 Savage necked down to 7mm with a slightly greater capacity..

while folks say the 308 was copied from the 300 Savage, it was actually the 276 Pederson....

of course in another egotistical move, MacArthur demanded the Garand be re designed to take the 30/06...

heck, even the 243 would be a much more effective long range killer in Afghanistan..and the 260 or 7/08 would be even better..

Im 55 and doubt youll see a new battle rifle totally adopted and used by our military in my lifetime. There just isnt money to replace the ars and for the most part they do a good job anyway. We allready had the best dammed military rifle made the M1a. If you want to arm our troups properly just make them again. It amazes me that back in ww2 and korea our soldiers could carry and shoot a grand or a ma1 and now there to heavy and kick to hard. has something happened genticaly to the american soldier!!!

Seafire

I don't think ego had anything to do with MacArther's decision. He was Cheif of Staff at the time and the country was in the middle of the Depression. There were millions and millions of '06 rounds in storage from WWI and it was not economically feasible to change. Developing and fielding a new rifle was a difficult enough sell but to go to a new cartridge with all those millions of '06 rounds available would not have been feasable. Money for the military was tight back then. It's the same reason why the M1903s that were only single heat treated were rebuilt and placed into storage instead of being destroyed. There is enough historical documentation that MacArther's decision was made on economics not ego.

Larry Gibson

I have used the FN FAL 7.62mm a lot during service rifle competitions as well as military service.

I have also used the 5.56mm R4 and R5 based on the Galil.

Both type of weapon systems has its place but if I have to operate in terrain such as Afghanistan the 7.62mm would be my only choice.

More emphasis needs to be done on training marksmen in shooting accurately in field environment as well...

Ok all of us agreed at least that in mountain ,windy terrain ,we need a heavier cartrige minimun the 6.8spc better yet the 7.62 -i like the hk417-
We agreed too that the m4 in any length is a very good CQB gun.
And the m16A2 is a good rifle under the 300mts.
The other conclusion is TRAINING most of us are shooters and train regularly ,but this isnt true with all the soldiers,we must go back to the fundamentals of rifle shooting and THEN teach CQB ,and INFANTRY TECHNIQUES .
But training real rifle training is expensive and time consuming so is only reserved for SF ,and in a terrain like Afganistan YOU NEED MARKSMEN.Juan you can see some of our courses here www.cietac.com.ar

The 6.8 SPC is a great round but chambering M4s to that caliber is a band-aid for a bigger problem. I think the best short term answer would be to issue a number of modified versions of the M110 (SR-25, AR-10) rifle. The M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle (SASS) has a long heavy barrel, heavy handguard, bipod, and adjustable stock. A non-sniper version would make sense for a battle rifle in open terrain. The barrel could be lightened and shortened. Then a fixed or collapsible standard type AR stock could be fitted. The sniper scope could be replaced with an ACOG or some other, lighter, scope that doesn't have all the bells and whistles that an illuminated 1000yd sniper scope has. The rifle would weigh 10 pounds instead of the 15+ pounds of an M110.

The M110 is already type classified and a current issue item. A standard (non-sniper) version could be adopted virtually overnight. Magazines, ammo, replacement parts, and maintenance would be common among sniper rifles and battle rifles. Soldiers familiar with the M16/M4 would need very little training to transition to the M110.

It would be sort of like deriving the M14 from the M21. Why this isn't already underway is a mystery to me.

Current factory offerings that could be used as a starting point to build from are COTS rifles from Knight's Armament SR-25 Enhanced Match Rifle , Armalite AR-10 A4 , Remington R-25 , and DPMS LR-AP4 .

I tend to agree with Juan. There is no magical equipment solution. Equipment will go part way to resolving any perceived effectiveness shortfall, but the full solution will involve training. How in heavens name does the infantry train if not with their battle equipment? I suspect the answer is that they train in calling in support either from helicopters, artillery or drones! This combined arms stuff is fine, but when you come to depend on it, I suspect that your reliance on your own equipment decreases.
Peter.

Regarding the actual round required, the 6.8spc was a short term fix to fit in the existing AR15 upper. It seems to my amateur mind that a .25 or .26 cal 100gr bullet in a 250 Savage or x47 Lapua case would make a very good compromise between weight, volume and terminal effect. 2900 - 3000 FPS should be achievable without excessive pressure. Obviously, this would not fit in the AR15, and the AR10 is probably too big/heavy to be ideal.

Seems to me to be a straight forward engineering project to come up with a rifle in the correct size based on the best designs out there right now. Of course if military procurement gets the nod, it will take 10 years and a few billion to implement.

A suitable rifle for the actions envisioned over the next decade or two might be more useful to the US and Nato than another aircraft carrier....

The hk417 is here rigth now ,we are testing it in the DOEM the buenos aires city HRT team.The asymetric warfare unit tested it in IRAK and it was a great succes.But we must remeber that the 5.56 for CQB is really good and the injures are really difficult to repair.

Anything designed to fit the M16/M4 platform will be too small for the wide open desert and mountain terrain of Afghanistan. It isn't the perfect answer but the best cartridge in the current US inventory would be the 7.62x51. If starting from the ground up then I'm sure a a better cartridge could be found but it would take too much time and money to develop, test, and field. The normal USA procurement process is six years. The accelerated procurement process is two years. The need is here now. It would take a commercial off the shelf (COTS) weapon firing a cartridge currently in inventory to get fielded fast enough to make a difference today.

Juan - The HK417 is the sort of thing needed.

The concept of an assault rifle and a designated marksman work in the jungle and in urban terrain. But now our forces need to get back to the old concept of a battle rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Anything designed to fit the M16/M4 platform will be too small for the wide open desert and mountain terrain of Afghanistan. It isn't the perfect answer but the best cartridge in the current US inventory would be the 7.62x51. If starting from the ground up then I'm sure a a better cartridge could be found but it would take too much time and money to develop, test, and field. The normal USA procurement process is six years. The accelerated procurement process is two years. The need is here now. It would take a commercial off the shelf (COTS) weapon firing a cartridge currently in inventory to get fielded fast enough to make a difference today.

Juan - The HK417 is the sort of thing needed.

The concept of an assault rifle and a designated marksman work in the jungle and in urban terrain. But now our forces need to get back to the old concept of a battle rifle.

Good Post.

I am friends with 3 people involved in Somalia [Blackhawk Down], which was an urban setting.

All were very disapointed in the 223, even with good hits.

The few that had 308's had much better results.

In Iraq the use of "Match" bullets by some has increased the effectiveness of the 223. Also some private contractors have been using "commercial" 223 ammo with good results...

But for Afganistan, I would want a 308, with the Match bullets, at least.

An M 14, even with an 18" barrel, good ammo, and good optics, like a 4x ACOG, will shoot just fine to 850 yards.

An H&K 91 with a 4x will do the same...

Jaegers the conclusion is,WE NEED THE RIFLE RIGTH NOW ,IT MUST BE A MOUNTAIN RIFLE ,IN 308,but weigth is important ,i have to run everyday with my FAL and i can assure you that weigth is an important matter ,so anM14 with a 18 barrel and a good ligth stock ,or again the 417HK .
The HK91 is the same that the fal long and heavy.
At CQB distances the 5.56 with special ammo performs real well.
A seal named THOMAS used rcbd frangible ammo working for blackwater in irak with great succes.

As posted above, using the mag well dimensions of the M16 as a design restriction for a new miltary cartridge has done more to harm small arms development in the US than help it.

That being said, the Mq6/M4 is simply not as bad as the press makes it out. I never met an infantryman, myself included, that didn't complain at various times about the M16/M4 being too light, too heavy, too small, too long, too inaccurate, too slow, too old, too new, too loud, too hard to clean, not deadly enough, etc,etc,etc.

Whoever replaces the old gal will no doubt have an equally tumultuous honeymoon (just like the M1,M14, and M16 did) and the infantryman will never truly love her until he is home in his rocker 40 years later, thanking his Creator and his rifle that one didn't cause him to meet the business end of the other.

The current problem is that rounds fired aren't connecting. Compare MK262 with M80 or even M118LR and the situation isn't nearly as grim as it has been represented. A friend of mine kills people all the time at 900m with the MK12 and hasn't fired a round of 7.62 in anger in a couple of years. He refuses to take his 110 out of it's case. With the poor level of medical care available to Hajji a 556 wound even at long range is oftentimes fatal.

M240s are being left on the FOB because they and their ammunition weigh too much. Same with 60mm mortars. Solution: an 18 pound 7x46 belt fed to replace the SAW at the squad level, and carry the 60mm outside the wire.

The US has a history of not expending theammo and time to train the shooters to hit what they aim at.
If the AR platforms were semi auto rather then full auto, not giving the shooter a choic,e may help also.

Jim

The 6.8SPC is almost a ballistic clone of the .280British which was the preferred cartridge for the FAL until the US completely ignored the original intent of a controllable FA rifle & insisted on the T65 round, which was a near match for the 30-06 & all the disadvantages thereof.
Why UKLF don't just extract some of the L1A1 rifles we still have from store is beyond comprehension (unless we DID flog off the last few thousand right when we needed them).
My crappy eyesight combined with a non magnified Eotech on an L1A1 can hit "minute of man" reliably out to 500yds, so I'm damn' sure our troops could do better with something similar.

Oddbod here ,the problem is training ,only spec ops really do good training with civilian shooters in academys and study the matter ,I know the SEALS and some marines units improved a lot after training at GUNSITE ,but problem is money.
I trained a lot of soldiers and cops ,-just to demostrate a point-only with air guns and airsoft and THEY IMPROVED A LOT WITHOUT SPENDING MONEY-so we must goning but read A RIFLEMAN WENT TO WAR OF HERBERT MCBRIDE and we will have better results in the mountains.BUT HERE ALL OF US MORE ORE LES AGREED IN ALL THE POINTS.

quote:

Originally posted by arkypete:
The US has a history of not expending theammo and time to train the shooters to hit what they aim at.
If the AR platforms were semi auto rather then full auto, not giving the shooter a choic,e may help also.

Jim

The M4 Carbine does not have a fully automatic option and is rarely fired except in semi-automatic. I've done some shooting with current servicemen and their marksmanship training gets better every year. Especially now they are working on their short game, which is more important than their long game (that area being reserved for mortars, etc.).

quote:

The M4 Carbine does not have a fully automatic option

Since when? The M4 has always had a full auto position or a 3 round burst selector position/ability. Many enerprising troops put M16A1 triggers in M16A2s and M4s to get rid of the 3 round burst and particularly the 3 different trigger pulls.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

The M4 Carbine does not have a fully automatic option

Since when? The M4 has always had a full auto position or a 3 round burst selector position/ability. Many enerprising troops put M16A1 triggers in M16A2s and M4s to get rid of the 3 round burst and particularly the 3 different trigger pulls.

Larry Gibson

M4 = Safe, Fire, Burst. General issue weapon.
M4A1 = Safe, Fire, Auto. Limited issue weapon.

I never saw a line troop mess with a FCG and not raise the ire of his 1Sgt or armorer. YMMV.

quote:

Originally posted by ChetNC:

I never saw a line troop mess with a FCG and not raise the ire of his 1Sgt or armorer. YMMV.

Any enterprising "line troop" that does doesn't tell the 1SG and simply sticks the issue trigger (FNC) back in before returning it to the arms room. I never saw very many "armorers" inspect the FCGs any way, they just inspected the chambers and pulled the triggers before shoving the rifle onto the rack . When the rifles get shipped off to a TI then the FCG is "original" for obvious reasons.

Obviously you never were around too many SF 18Bs either. Hell, the 1SG of our SF company intructed the support unit armorer to leave his FCG alone "or else" after he replaced it with a M16A1 FCG.

BTW; the 3 shot burst is a full auto fire selection, it just prevents more than 3 shots with any single trigger pull. More than one shot per pull of a trigger is considered "full auto".

Larry Gibson

i am a marine scout sniper and have been to Iraq 3x and Afghanistan 1x. the m4 was a great weapon in Iraq. i fought in the streets of Baghdad, fallujah, and ramadi. @ close range urban combat the weapon was quick and accurate, and i would not have wanted anything else. i had a standard M4 which only had the burst option. in Afghanistan i had an M4-A1 which was full auto. i also had a MK-11 which for lack of better terms was a beefed up M16 that shot a 7.62. i liked the idea of the weapon until i actually got to take it on 3-5 day R/S missions. it has no forward assist and the butt-stock is not adjustable. if they would change those two things you would have a winner. it also had a SB scope which i liked b/c it was the same scope on my M40-A3. i liked the m-4 personally while i was in afghanistan b/c i was down south by the helmand river where there was alot of vegetation and all my teams encounters with the enemy was with in 200m. however my unit also had guys working up north in the mountains and they all said they wished they had a larger caliber weapon. the marine corps also has the MK12 which is basically a M16 with a heavy 20" barrel and a Leupold scope, i would rather have that than an M-4 if i was up north and shooting at longer ranges. im not a fan of the ACOG/RCO, i hate that "chevron" sight, i would rather just have a simple cross hair. with all that said, thats why i became a sniper, i love my M40. i know there are better sniper systems out there but the 40 is one hell of a gun and there is nothing like staring at someone through a scope knowing you are the deciding factor of weather he walks away or goes to meet his maker!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by ChetNC:

I never saw a line troop mess with a FCG and not raise the ire of his 1Sgt or armorer. YMMV.

Any enterprising "line troop" that does doesn't tell the 1SG and simply sticks the issue trigger (FNC) back in before returning it to the arms room. I never saw very many "armorers" inspect the FCGs any way, they just inspected the chambers and pulled the triggers before shoving the rifle onto the rack . When the rifles get shipped off to a TI then the FCG is "original" for obvious reasons.

Obviously you never were around too many SF 18Bs either. Hell, the 1SG of our SF company intructed the support unit armorer to leave his FCG alone "or else" after he replaced it with a M16A1 FCG.

BTW; the 3 shot burst is a full auto fire selection, it just prevents more than 3 shots with any single trigger pull. More than one shot per pull of a trigger is considered "full auto".

Larry Gibson

Yep, you got me there Larry. I never saw too many Army dogs when I deployed in MEU(SOC)'s. (Where were those long haired, high speed/low drag guys anyway?) I can only tell you what I saw as a Marine and I never saw anybody replace a FCG in the field with something non standard. I did see our armorer's function check our rifles many times, not looking for FA FCG's but just in the normal course of their job. Too bad your guys didn't do the same. A good armorer is worth his weight in gold.

BTW, "more than one shot per trigger pull" is considered "select fire". The M4 and M4A1 are different types of select fire weapons and the lowers are marked "BURST" and "AUTO" respectively. Although, I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

Good luck to you.

Chet

No real point other than the 3 shot burst is an attempt to mechanically (instead of proper training) keep Soldiers/Marines to 3 shots per trigger pull in automatic fire instead of the 20 shot burst over the wall at Hue. It is full auto fire whether the receiver is marked "burst" or "auto". I spent quite a bit of the last 3 years back at Lajeune, Pickett and AP Hill managing training scenarios and doing weapons training for the Marine (also did quite a bit at Pendleton, 29 Palms and NTC at Irwin). At Pendleton I did hear a SSG and LCPL discusing switching out the FCG with commercial drop in 2 stage triggers. I guess them "west coast" Marines are more wild and wooley than the "east coast" Marines....at least they always claimed to be
Good luck to you and thank you for your service to our country.

Larry Gibson

I have been retired a few years now so I may be out of date.IMHO however, the 20 yrs I served in the infantry the basic squad makeup was something like this. SL-M16/M4,2 ea TL-M203,2 ea M249 Saw, 1ea-7.62 Machine gun,3 ea M16 Rifleman. Now given the fact that most squads never deploy a full strength you can cut 1 or 2 rifleman. SL's should employ the wpns made for the target. Beyond 300m they shouldn't be using any M4's. That why they have other weapons. The average soldier isn't going to hit anything past 250m in a combat situation. They need to be trained to use the wpns they have. Not do a knee jerk reaction by replaceing their wpns. If anything place a trained sniper in every squad and add 203's to all rifleman. I have carried both 223 and 7.62 wpns in combat and given the modern load the todays soldiers carry (average over 100 lbs) I don't think a 7.62 rifle is the answer.This is not to mention the 60mm mortars assigned to every platoon and 81mm assigned to Bn. for fire support.