Perhaps a pertinant discussion would be better centered on the "modern load (average over 100 lbs)"?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Perhaps a pertinant discussion would be better centered on the "modern load (average over 100 lbs)"?

Larry Gibson

As the gizmos get smaller and lighter then it just seems to make room for more gizmos.

Food got lighter but you have to carry more water now.

A separate AM transmitter (with crystals) and receiver got replaced with one AM transceiver. FM radios were big with limited range. The FM radios got smaller and better. That left room for a second FM radio of a different band. Those got replaced by a multiband radio leaving room for GPS and NVGs.

The GPS got smaller and left room for a DMDG.

The LTD was replaced by smaller lasers so now a few of those can fit in the ruck and on the rifle.

The 7.62 rifle was replaced with a lighter 5.56 rifle with ammo of lighter weight. So now you have an M4 decorated like a Christmas tree that weighs what an M14 weighed. Lighter ammo just means you can increase the amount you carried in your basic load and that's what happened. Net change in weight is an increase.

The jungle rucks didn't carry enough so they were replaced with ALICE rucks. Those didn't carry enough so they were replaced with LOWE rucks which are just a big duffel bag with a frame. You couldn't hang enough on the LOWE ruck once it was stuffed full so the MOLLE system came out. Now you can load the soldier up like a pack mule.

For years soldiers had an intelligent two part system. One part was the heavy rucksack and the other part was the light LBE or LCE or what have you. The concept was, in a firefight, the ruck could be dumped and the soldier would be light, quick, and maneuverable with his combat essentials on his harness and belt. That concept was challenged over and over again but always came out the winner. I remember one test conducted in the early 1980s. It was the British system, similar to what the US issues now, against the US LCE/rucksack system. They used a mix of about 100 soldiers, both US and British, and had them run through several scenarios including force-on-force. They also had them change to each other's equipment. The US LCE system won out. The soldiers were exhausted and slow trying to use the British system. Even the British soldiers admitted this and they said they would like to have the US system. But the system we have today forces the soldier to carry too much even AFTER he has dumped his ruck. Contrary to good reason, we have adopted something like the old British system. Nadick and PM Soldier must be proud.

Grenadier

Excellent dissertation. The only addition I have is the increase weight of body armor equates to a much lessor mobility. It also requires much more water for the soldier in hot dry climates. Nothing was subtracted from the soldiers load when the 35-45 lbs of body armor was added. As an old soldier I relate to the 2 part system and how it developed. I always thought the medium ALICE was just about right for cold weather operations. When they tried to give me a LOWE I said not to duffle bag and kept the ALICE. What's on the LBE/LCE is "need to have" and what's on/in the ruck is "nice to have"....from and old infantry/SF guy who learned the hard way.

Larry Gibson

Every study conducted since WWI concluded that when a soldier carries more than 35-45 pounds into battle his effectiveness is diminished. Unfortunately no one pays attention to that.

Larry, the guys I know are mostly 2/75, 1SFG or FA guys at Sill. The ones with M4s don't mess with the FCGs and the ones with auto groups keep the selector on semi most of the time. I don't consider the M4 to be an automatic weapon even if the ATF does. 3rd is pretty much worthless to me. Then, I'm not military--I've heard that having half the team at an ambush on semi and half on burst ensure they will reload at separate times. That could be done with automatic though as well.

I think instead of increasing the caliber of the individual weapon a strong case can be made for increasing the caliber of the saw. A 7x46 (150@2600) with a high BC FMJ would excel at mountain warfare and in a PKM derived platform would weigh the same as the saw. My understanding is that in AFG the 240s and 60mms are often left behind because of the weight. No wonder there are issues hitting back.

Also, the lighter the unit that a guy serves in, the more likely they are to tell me they don't want hard armor. 2/75 guys in particular have told me that on patrol in the mountains they would like to go without, preferring maneuverability to protection.

One book that touches on the "basic load" carried by Spec Ops troops is "BRAVO TWO ZERO".

It is about an SAS operation durring Desert Storm. It is a good read.

In my former Job I wore a ballistic vest all the time, and added heavy armour when making "house calls".

I also used the heavy armour sometimes when doing rural searches for some people.

After a long day in the field, many times I thought "next time I will do a man hunt in my underware..."

For our Soldiers in the Sandbox I have great respect for what they do every day... Even if it is a day they do not get shot at.

I can also say that ballistic armour has saved the lives of people standing right next to me on more than one occasion...

ME, well I have seen the Matrix 5 times, the only time I was ever hit was with a ricochet, and they were not even shooting directly at me.

The SAW is a good wpn capable of hitting targets at 800m (which my gunners could do) so whats the reason to change the caliber??? The avg grunt doesn't have the option that SF or Rangers have,they carry what they are told.The load for a 3/4 day mission goes something like this: Rations 20lbs, Water 2 lbs per quart,claymore mine,7 30 rd mags with extra ammo, Grenades, trip flares,NVG,Extra ammo for 7.62 MG, Sleeping gear, then add kelvar, body armor, (maybe some)personal hyigene equipment and maybe some comfort items. Even if you could carry what you wanted these are basic things. These guys don't go back to base/home everyday they live or die with what they carry on their back and a resupply doesn't happen often.

Rob, understood. Also, realize that at 800m your SAW bullet has been traveling at less than the speed of sound for a hundred meters.

Personally I find the SAW difficult to shoot accurately. I'm a strong shooter with other platforms. An 0311 who used a SAW extensively told me it wasn't me. Other guys told me it's a death ray. All I know is I like other belt feds better.

Also, the SAW should have the magazine feed option removed. Few things in life more frustrating than trying to use a SAW with magazines.

RyanB

The guys in 1SFG and 2/75 have'nt had to mess with FNCs on M4s as their's should all have FA instead of the 3 rd burst, basically they already have the M16A1 parts in them. I was refering to days of old when the M16A2 was standard issue. Don't know what the FA at Sill is carrying so can't comment.

Lots of theory on ammo expendature in an ambush. However, given the limited man power of an A Detachment and that most of the time additional firepower or support is not available if you haven't done the job in 30 rounds on that ambush then the "ambush" has become a battle and you'd better be heading for the intitial rally point in stead of reloading and slugging it out. On my A Detachments all used semi and put effective fire onto targets in their sector of fire. When all your targets were down you stopped firing. Spray and pray was not an option. The enwmy was searched for intel, weapons disabled and we left real quick. Most often we avaioded any contact such as an "ambush" as that would compromise our mission unless the mission was DA and the ambush was the mission. We tried to leave the "ambushes are murder, murder is fun" stuff up to the Rangers as that was their bag. When leading 'diges in UW on light infantry missions then ambushes become useful. However the SF guys are the advisors and leaders and seldom should conduct the ambush themselves. With such trained 'diges other forces are in support and other firepower is available. Apples and Oranges thing.

"Also, the lighter the unit that a guy serves in, the more likely they are to tell me they don't want hard armor. 2/75 guys in particular have told me that on patrol in the mountains they would like to go without, preferring maneuverability to protection."

That would be the best thing for them to do if they are allowed (probably not). In small unit infantry action maneuverability is often to key to winning and surviveability.

Good points on the 5.56 out of the SAW; it is ineffective at longer range regardless of the weapon it is fired out of.

N E 450 No2

Bravo Two Zero is an excellent read. It is a very good training lesson on most everything not to do on a Strat Recon mission.

Larry Gibson

Understood.

My brother was telling me that in OCS they initiated an ambush on another platoon with 1000 rounds from a 240. Probably can't do that every time.

Ryan, the mag feed on the SAW is for a last resort when you can get mags from other soldiers around you because you are out of ammo better to have a mag fed than a club. PS OCS is far from the real world most planned ambushes should start with a daisy chain of claymores not much left after that most times.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
Rob, understood. Also, realize that at 800m your SAW bullet has been traveling at less than the speed of sound for a hundred meters.

Personally I find the SAW difficult to shoot accurately. I'm a strong shooter with other platforms. An 0311 who used a SAW extensively told me it wasn't me. Other guys told me it's a death ray. All I know is I like other belt feds better.

Also, the SAW should have the magazine feed option removed. Few things in life more frustrating than trying to use a SAW with magazines.

You guys can keep the SAW, give me an L4A1 aka the old Bren in 7.62 Nato..

Using it, I *will* punch out to 1000m with ease and its accurate enough to engage point targets too, not just as an area weapon with a beaten zone.

Beyond 1000m, out 1800m I'll still get your attention, and you would not be wise to play chicken out in the open even at those ranges!

quote:

Originally posted by Rob1SG:
Ryan, the mag feed on the SAW is for a last resort when you can get mags from other soldiers around you because you are out of ammo better to have a mag fed than a club. PS OCS is far from the real world most planned ambushes should start with a daisy chain of claymores not much left after that most times.

Haha believe me, I know and more importantly he knows that OCS isn't the real world. He's an Artilleryman btw.

Understood that the mag feed is a last resort. It's still a joke. If you're out of belted ammunition and have to start using magazines I would think there is someone around who isn't going to be using his box fed weapon ever again...

From four deployments woth of experience, there is not a whole lot wrong with the lethality of 5.56mm.

Is 7.62x51mm (NATO 7.62) better? Of course it is, in many ways, but the downside is the stiffer recoil across all platforms and increased weight. It's not a comparison between a sling shot and a JDAM though.

If this is a discussion between 7.62x39mm and 5.56mm, that is a horse of a different color. The other issues that need to be talked about then are the primitive iron sights on the AK-47s as well as the lack of marksmanship skills of the general enemy our guys face off against. I'd take an M4 in 5.56mm at 300m anytime against an AK-47 at 300m.

Most engagements I was involved in were between 50-150 meters, anyhow. Like most hunting cartridges that might be considered "undersized" for particular game, it's still about shot placement and the 5.56mm military load shoots flat enough out to 300m, there isn't much worry about compensating for range.

It's been said before, but the modern rifle squad is not just made up of riflemen. Each squad has a mix of M4s, M4/M203s, M249 SAWs and sometimes a designated marksman with an M14 (my last unit had squads set up like this: Squadleader (M4) and two fire teams set up as follows: Team Leader (M4), Machinegunner (M249 SAW), Rifleman (M4 or M14), Grenadier (M4/M203)). A light or airborne rifle platoon has at least 2 M240B machineguns in 7.62x51mm as well. The Rangers tend to task organize machineguns from a Weapons Platoon based on the mission, but Light and Airborne infantry also make changes based on the mission and threat faced.

Could every M4 be a 7.62x51mm variant? Sure, but Soldiers and Marines would be carrying less ammunition if weight loads remained consistent. I have a personal 7.62x51mm LWRCI REPR with a 12.7" BBL, and I love it. Would have loved to have carried it on deployment, but it's heavier than my issued M4 by about 4 pounds and that is with only a foregrip and ACOG-TA11H; still lacking the PEQ-2, and yet heavier. I can also see smaller framed infantrymen having issues controlling that recoil for accurate followup shots as well as carrying it on extended operations.

Fighting in the hills and mountains in Afghanistan, we pretty much shed assault packs and rucks and went with water and ammo; we left sustainment loads on vehicles for later link up or push forward. Much the same in Iraq; there is very little sustained patrolling or search and attack operations in terrain that precludes link up with vehicles for resupply.

My two cents.

Outlaw6 says...

quote:

From four deployments worth of experience...

My most sincere appreciation of and thanks for your service, sir. You are a real American...

quote:

I can also see smaller framed infantrymen having issues controlling that recoil for accurate followup shots as well as carrying it on extended operations.

I just got to wonder how all those "smaller framed infantryman managed in WWII, Korea and early Viet Nam with the M1, BAR and M14? Maybe we should be feeding our troops Wheaties instead of granola bars...........

Larry Gibson

I'm wondering how the British conquered the world with the .303 and SMLE 100 years ago ?

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:

You guys can keep the SAW, give me an L4A1 aka the old Bren in 7.62 Nato..

Using it, I *will* punch out to 1000m with ease and its accurate enough to engage point targets too, not just as an area weapon with a beaten zone.

Beyond 1000m, out 1800m I'll still get your attention, and you would not wise to play chicken out in the open even at those ranges!

Ah, the voice of wisdom in the darkness. I hear you brother.

quote:

I just got to wonder how all those "smaller framed infantryman managed in WWII, Korea and early Viet Nam with the M1, BAR and M14? Maybe we should be feeding our troops Wheaties instead of granola bars...........

The bigger grunts carried the BARs which were chambered in .30-06, the M1 was more of a single shot rifle and the M14 eventually went away in favor of the M16A1 if you recall. I really think it went more to the weight of ammo carried than the recoil difference. Still, I am 6'4" and well over 250 at this point in life and my followup shots with my REPR are affected by the recoil pretty substantially.

The 5.56mm is a heckuvalot more manageable for all troops and I have served with some pretty small framed grunts that would have been less effective with a 7.62x51mm weapon in heated firefights.

quote:

I'm wondering how the British conquered the world with the .303 and SMLE 100 years ago ?

They were fighting people with spears, swords and single shot muskets 100 years ago? Ah, hyperbole works both ways sir

quote:

Originally posted by Outlaw6:

quote:

I'm wondering how the British conquered the world with the .303 and SMLE 100 years ago ?

They were fighting people with spears, swords and single shot muskets 100 years ago? Ah, hyperbole works both ways sir

I don't think the Germans were running around the Western front with "spears, swords and single shot muskets 100 years ago"


.

Hah, fair enough. Not to completely derail the thread, but certainly the "western front" does not encompass the world, nor were the English the only forces engaged there.

Back on topic: I think the obvious superiority of roughly 3 times the kinetic energy at point of impact (7.62x51mm vs 5.56mm) speaks for itself both on effects on the human body and penetration of body armor, cinderblock construction and the ability to shoot through vegetation.

People have been killed with far less knietic energy and that is why the 5.56mm is fairly adequate although not ideal.

If you can quote a former super secret operator from units that supposedly don't exist championing the 6.8mm SPC, there are also quotes from the same sort of person supporting the 5.56mm as adequate with no need to change. I have actually either had or overheard those conversations personally.

If you scroll up, you'll notice I bought a 7.62x51mm carbine for myself and not a 5.56mm one, but I still think the 5.56mm is fine for what it is intended.

I shake my head when i see a modern soldier on tv. I dont know how they can possibly take that heat wraped in body armor and carrying all the weight they do now. In my day a soldier carry a 1/10 of what they do now and usually did it in a t shirt. The modern soldier must be in much better pysical shape then we were as i would have died from heat exaustion way before someone could have shot me.

quote:

Originally posted by Outlaw6:
....... but I still think the 5.56mm is fine for what it is intended.

Outlaw6

If you go back and check, the 5.56 was designed, along with the AR15, for the Air Force as a replacement for M1 carbines used by Airmen guarding airplanes. The problem is it was then used for something it was not intended for. I don't know where the idea came from (perhaps the TV show "Combat"?) that the "big guys" always got the BAR. I weighed 135 lbs and humped an M60 MG for about 6 months in Viet Nam. That didn't bother me at all. I don't know many who were trained on the M14 who wanted to give it up in '65 for an M16. BTW; have you hefted an M4 these days with all the trick gadgets on it?

Larry Gibson

While the M16 was indeed first purchased by the USAF as a security weapon, I do not believe that Gene Stoner developed it for that purpose. Several significant studies (all flawed somewhat in retrospect) indicated that a smaller caliber, high velocity round was more likley to be both useable and effective at creating wounds (hit probability, hydrostatic shock, tissue disruption etc).

The good news is that these outcomes are mostly true, the bad news is that the are not completely true.

I doubt any of us will disagree that the 55 or 62 grn FMJ .224 bullet is very VERY effective in close range engagements, we also will agree that that this window extends maybe to 200 m with an M4, a bit farther with a 20 inch barrel.

Alas, the compromise between KE/caliber/velocity and momentum as well as frangibility (not to mention the Marksmanship and Logisitic considerations) will not be soon maximized in a single platform.

(Yet I do like the idea of a 257x45, pushing a OTM 80-90 grain round at about 2900-3000 fps from a 20 in barrel-compatible with the AR system in all aspects-but still will be a mid range tool- any one want to help me develop a reamer for it?)

Best;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...ound/m16-history.htm

It was designed as a replacement for the M14, apparently at the behest of the Army, the Air Force and Marines were the first to field it is all.



Again, nothing wrong with the lethality of the 5.56mm.

Bravo for being a smaller than average guy and humping the hog; I carried the M60 in Ranger school and in all later units we tended to have our larger gunners carry it's successor, the M240B. Easier for them to manage the weight and get steel on target since their larger mass absorbs the 6-9 round burst worth of recoil. Not impossible for smaller guys ofcourse, but more ideal with a bigger grunt.

I carried a tricked out M4 in the mountains of Afghanistan for ten months and grabbed an M4/M203 in Iraq for 12 months since it was unmanned and a hell of a lot more lethal than just the carbine. My father would agree with you that the M14 was a better platform since he was forced to switch in Vietnam himself, he still talks about the advantage in being able to carry tons more ammo for his M16 in the bush.

quote:

I'm wondering how the British conquered the world with the .303 and SMLE 100 years ago ?

Because they didn't get the bus from A to B but route marched!

So there basic fitness was actually physically fitter than today's soldier.

Napoleon's troops, some, would have actually marched to Moscow and back in 1812. Incredible to think of that nowadays.

urban combat-- and even out to 200 yds the .223 has functioned fairly well

the 308 functions well far beyond that range-- but in the current format is bulkier and more unwieldy esp in close quarters

The first 223's "tested" by our " advisors in Viet Nam had "the wrong twist" due to worn rifling equipment at Colt

as a result --"devastating" close quarters wounds in the jungle environment were 1st reported --

these early reports helped along the decision to adopt the weapon

it was only later discovered that the severe wounding was due to poorly stabilized (actually un-stabilized) projectiles

later the rifling equipment was"fixed" the wound trauma was then much less than initially reported



the 6.8 is a reasonable compromise for urban/midrange engagements with its heavier bullet

since the platform and weight are not greatly altered

increased utilization of 308's , M1A/ M14 in more open range areas is also a grand idea

If I remember correctly the first AR15/M16 [the first Ar 15's were fully automatic], had a 1 in 14" twist. It was found in the cold weather tests that the 55 gr bullets were not stabilized, so the twist was changed to 1 in 12".

Later when they went to the heavier bullets the twist was changed to 1 in 7", mainly to stabilize the 223 tracer bullets which are much longer than even the SS109/M855.

the 1st ones were to be 1 in 14 , the examination of some of the 1st production showed variable rifling , with irregular twist

some as much as 1 in 18 and some showing variable twist rates within the same barrel, as the "worn" machines did their work

1 in 12 was adopted both from the cold weather testing as well as other field tests

First I ever heard of the 'worn out rifling machinery at Colt" giving the early M16s bad twists. I do know that in Viet Nam in May of '65 when we deployed (Recon, HHC, 1/503rd Inf, 173rd Airborne Brigade Seperate) we had a few EX16s we called "green guns" because they had green butt stocks and forends. They had 14" twist barrels and shot very well indeed, not much cold weather to worry about. The impacts were also much more destructive than the M16s we had which had 12" twists. Neither were anywhere as destructive as M80 7.62 NATO from an M60 or M14 (we had those also) at any range.

Larry Gibson

Gentlemen. This is one of (if not the) best threads I've ever read.

Some of the early M16a2's had a 1/9 twist. This was to accomidate the transitition from the 55gr to 62br bullets. My Guard unit was issued a2's with a 1/9 twist in 1986-1987, but Schofiled we had 1/7 twist barrels.

Living in an urban area with 14k ft mountains to the west and plains to the east, it very easy to appreciate the man truths in this thread. I guess that's why I don't have one go gun, but two, 16" bbl AR platform, and a 20" bbl L1A1.

As for things that NEVER change...well didn't the spartans and romans carry about the same weight as our boys today?

The American soilder can be truely amazing. During Custers expedition of 1869 the 7th Cav logged over 2000 miles chasing Indians....never did catch them.

A little more background on the initial thoughts behind the M-16:


The "concept" of the AR-15/M-16 came about from an "un-official"(off the record) 1956 meeting of General Willard Wyman (commander of CONARC),
Colonel Henry Nielson ( head of the Infantry Board) and Eugene Stoner (Chief designer for Armalite).

Wyman had seen the AR-10 during its evaluation and based on his experiences of Omaha Beach and Korea
believed a lighter faster weapon and cartridge would be an asset in such close combat situations.

Nielsen also thought along these lines, and though they could not "officially" buck the "higher-ups"
they felt Stoner would be not only be discreet, but was also capable of "shrinking" the AR-10 to meet their ideas of a light, fast, easy to control weapon.

The .222 rem was settled on by the three for the prototypes.

Through back channels Gen. Wyman privately brought the idea to Chief of Staff Maxwell Taylor of giving the "new" gun a test.

This occurred via the budget of CONARC's Infantry's " Human Research Unit" via a program labeled "Trainfire".

Results were such that the CIA, and other "Advisors" procured "experimental" models to test.

This was prior to the sale to Colt, these were 1 in 14 twist weapons.

Stoner felt that the 55 grain bullet would be " unstable enough" up close for severe wounding yet stable enough to give a 300+ yd effective range.

Though Taylor was a"fan" of the gun, he had "bigger fish to fry"--NATO--

the fragile alliance had just gone through political teething pains with respect to the "rigged" tests against the .280 British round.

As 1959 rolled around he could not afford the political turmoil -- the M-14 and the 7.62 NATO was here to stay.

This resulted in huge canceled orders at Fairchild/Armalite eventually resulting in the sale to Colt in 1959.

Aggressive sales efforts on Colt's part esp. through the Asian area failed to produce any orders.



Which leads to:

The "man that saved the M-16" was General Curt LeMay.

He wanted a light easy handling weapon for his SAC guards who had been carrying M1 Carbines.

Turned down several times by the Ordnance Department-- he found his avenue via McNamara's

reorganization that placed Ordnance under AMC (Army Materiel Command).

During the confusion LeMay managed to sneak through an order for 8,500.



Though this was only the beginning of the "calibre battle" --It had indeed begun.

quote:

Gentlemen. This is one of (if not the) best threads I've ever read.

Antelope, agreed! I am proud to have started it. I was afraid that I would get the usual "Give 'em all 50 cal BMGs we don't want our boys undergunned" instead this has been very thoughtful and thought out! FWIW I don't think we can go back to semi auto fire. So that means that we still need to be able to carry far more ammo than our WW2 counterparts. Interesting dilema.
Peter.

Thanks Peter.
There are some amazing contributors on this thread.

For those of you who don't know who Larry Gibson is:

http://washingtonguard.org/new.../fo-gibsonstar.shtml

The real tragedy of the "rifle after the M1 Garand", is not adopting a cartridge like the 280 British.

Of course the Garand in 276, was WAY ahead of its time as well.

The selection of any countries "Army" rifle has maybe even more to do with politics than performance...

Truth is in the Modern World of Combat, there is not one rifle that is best for all situations. Any single pick is a compromise...

In the USA under current situations of Equiment and Money that can be spent, I would place the 20" M 16 as standard, the 14" M4 as the Urban Entry gun, and the M 14 as the "Open Country" rifle...

I do believe it is best if all the soldiers in a group have the same calibre rifle...

From what I know from talking to soldiers that were and are actually there I would want an M4 for Iraq, and an M 14 for Afganastan.

However if I was a DM [Designated Marksman] in Iraq I would be happy and would prefer the M 14.

And truely, since I do not believe in a lot of spray and pray, [now, cover, and supresive, and "recon by fire" does have its place...]I could do good with an M 14 most any place...

My Thanks to Larry Gibson...

A true American Hero, one of many that has not and never will be recognized as a Man that protected the Republic...

IMHO, our Military people are not nearly compensated enough.

The US Military has not only saved America many times, and some of our allies as well, but the World at least twice...

Sadly, in some recent conflicts, the politions have failed us, and the World a few times, but the Soldiers have always done their duty above and beyond.

N E 450 N02 & Antelope Sniper

Your thanks is very much appreciated. I've not tooted my own horn, just try to pass on what I've learned giving the reasons for what I say to others so they won't have to learn the hard way.

Larry Gibson

uncle sam could save a boat load of money if rather then upgrading to a new rifle an caliber theyd just get nosler to make them a bunch of 70 grain partitions for the existing 556

I don't think they can use expanding bullets. However the Nosler custom competition 69 gr. match bullets would work!
Peter.

theres nothing in the geneva convention that outlaws expanding bullets. What would be the differnce in shooting a expanding bullet compared to say a pure lead shotgun slug.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I don't think they can use expanding bullets. However the Nosler custom competition 69 gr. match bullets would work!
Peter.