Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Hi,

There was another Fox article about how they are using the same WWII bolt action rifles against our soliders that they used against the Soviets and are staying out of M-16/M-4 range and firing down on them. Thankfully our guys have better body armor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
During WWII, the Germans determined that most infantry combat took place at 300 meters or less. Their answer was the 8mm Kurz (short) cartridge and the Stg-44 "Assault" rifle. The Soviet forces were impressed enough to develop the 7.62x39mm cartridge used in the SKS and, later, the AK-47. The cartridge was also intended for 300 meters or less. The new Soviet round is similar to the German cartridge in performance.

The US military adopted the original M-16 with the same sort of combat range limitation in mind. The 55 grain bullet was not envisioned to be used at longer distances. The newer 62 grain bullet (M-16A2 rifles) and faster barrel twist rate has extended the effective range while improving penetration that the 55 grain bullet sorely lacked.

BUT, in open areas such as Afghanistan, the AK-47 and the M4 are both at a huge disadvantage if the enemy has any one of a number of rifles using 100+ years old military cartridges. Whether it's a .303 Enfield, a Mosin-Nagant, 98K or rifles firing other old military cartridges, the shooter can stand off well beyond the range of the M4 and AK-47 and lay down accurate fire if he's any good at all.

The answer may be as simple as having each squad equipped with a couple of rifles chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge and Soldiers/Marines who know how to use them.

Or, perhaps it's finally time to adopt a new rifle that uses a more effective long range cartridge.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
128 Posts
Put some politicians in the front line for a tour and see how quickly the troops get a new weapon to replace the M4!!! It's a disgrace that any country would send troops to war with inadequate equipment.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
> It's a disgrace that any country would send troops to war with inadequate equipment.

A few years ago I was one of the citizens that complained bitterly to our senators about our soldiers not having the proper body armor and under armored humvees in Iraq. Now that I understand guns a bit better, this will be my next pet peeve/project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,620 Posts
Hogwash, Our guys are not out gunned! Yes, standard rifle is an M4 with a effective range of 600ms if trained properly. If a soldier is going to miss with a 5.56 then he's going to miss with a 7.62. We got optics on our guns for a reason. We issue out 7.62mm M24, M110 and M14 rifles in EBR stocks, have M240 and Mk 48 lightweight 7.62mm machine guns with the platoons also. Then there is the radio back to the MRAPs with their Mk19 40mm, M2 .50 cal and M240 MGs. Need more then use that radio to call artillery or air support from OH-58Ds, AH-64, F16s, F15 or A10s here in country.

The Tailban is primary weapon is still the AK-47 series then PKM and RPG7s. We could issue more Mk262 5.56 across the board however.

CD

ETA: Body Armor and MRAPs save alot of lives. We still have the best riflemen in the world, training standards can improve however and the best NCOs are learning.
 

·
Inactive account
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
Weapons have to change with the circumstances. I sometimes take different rifles and pistols and bows to the woods for different situations not just for the challenge but to hunt more effectively. War is no different. Heck, I know that some in the streets of Iraq cities carried their door lock busting Mossburg for their primary fighting weapon and were glad to have it. We adapt quicker and more effectively than any country in the world. That keeps us free.

Rock on Warriors!! Rock on!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,427 Posts
Thank you for posting CD.

It's always good to hear from you, and even better to know you are alright!

I always look forward to your insight and experience, being you've been there and are doing 'that' as we all are safe here in the States.

Godspeed, keep safe,

Chris~
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
Seems to me that with the body armor, radios, nav equipment and other equipment that a modern grunt must carry, the lightweight M-16 is the right weapon. This also allows the soldier to carry more ammo.
Someone ask the soldiers, I'd like to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I see your arguement well, as even in veitnam the M-16 was then under powered to the rifles ho chi minh had at hand and little has changed since the 70's, sure it's a good looking mans toy but when my enemy is able to kill me and I can do nothing except call an arty or air strike, that's great but in the meantime surely the now dated 308 snipers rifle could be carried by those who can or want to.
Our mititary battle rifle the Steyr AUG is also chambered for the somewhat small 5.56 round, and we, that is Australia copied the new 5.56 round from the now aged M-16 Vietnam technology.
Now it seems our old .308 SLR is relegated to hunters shooting pigs, what a shame, when our main battle rifle is made of a plastic pop gun, shame on all the governments to not give their soldiers a better suited rifle, one that will sting a tad more and out to those 600 - 800 yard distances.
The right rifles exist now, all that is needed is for the governments to pull their heads out of the afghan desert and issue a new rifle or must we watch the right guns only on discovery channel in Future Weapons.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
863 Posts
"Fox has a couple of current articles on the inadequate M16 or whatever it is in Afghanifstan."

Fox means well and they are the best of the whole list of electonic "news" sources. BUT, the are still a bunch of "professional journalists", meaning they have little life experience or knowledge outside a studio and precious little desire to actually learn much more.

Mmodern "journalistd" are college trained to present stories by putting together a gut-churning idea to present to the public and then finding some "sources" to quote and then wrapping the story on whatever edited quotes they might need. (I can see the title of a 60 Minutes piece and tell you what the thrust will be and who the "guilty" are with at least 90% accuracy, the real facts won't matter at all.)

I have a very bright son-in-law (now a Federal Distric Judge) who started college in the mid 80's on a media scholarship. He confirmed all that to me, including that his "Ethics in Media" course didn't include ethics as such, only in how a story had to be presented in ways that could be defended in court if a target person wished to sue the writer! In other words, they were taught how to lie in the media without being held accountable! (UNC-Chapel Hill's "prestigess" school of journalism. I think that's where B.O.s press agent, Gibbs, was trained to lie with no sense of honor.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Fellas,
Although I have been following this site for sevearl years, this is my initial post. I felt I needed to add my thoughts as I have just come down from the hills where I have had a little experience with our weapons vs theirs.

Although I am a confirmed Elmer Keith diehard, I must agree with Combat Diver. I have never been a fan of the 5.56 when we have so many great 7.62 systems available, however until you have humped your ruck with ammo, water, radio , batteries, etc at 10,000 feet to fight these hillbillies and know it will be a while before a resupply bird can get in, well, I have to say that I am thankful that we are armed as we are.

Yes, I would prefer an M-21 or M-40 for myself, but sometimes you just have to have firepower. I went thru 15 mags in less than 30 minutes, and my team mate (his initial bloodletting) went thru 12. All well aimed, single shot engagements at two PKM's at just over 250m. I was glad I had those mags. Actually had my terp carry nine extra mags and additional ammo.

I hope some of my buddies do not see this, as it will be my first admission to actually liking the 5.56. But at my age,(just turned 57, yeah, I know...) I was darned glad to have the extra ammo the 5.56 round afforded me.

I will now return to lurking...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,620 Posts
RLTW,

Welcome to the site, glad that you walk away from those PKMs. If you ever get to Salerno give me a shout as I've got another year here.

Stay safe,
CD
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
24,225 Posts
RLTW - don't lurk - join in!

Welcome to the board and thanks for your service. Come back home safe.

I humped the M1 Garand in Korea and hated it. Fair accuracy, but heavy and carried 80 rounds of heavy ammo. Not conducive to hill crawling and hiking. Later acquired an M2 Carbine and thought I'd died and gone the heaven! Had all the firepower I wanted to assure my tender buttocks came home safely. Hear what you say about carried weight at high altitudes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,929 Posts
I never heard a World War 2 soldier complain about being able to carry there weapon up a hill or travel through the mountains with their rifle & ammo! Now perhpas men in those days of war were more capable of humping it over the mountain.

My old man was with Gen. Patton in the 3rd Army and never once said his rifle and ammo were to much to carry........in freezing weather and a forced march to Bastogne to rescue the 101st Airborn. The Thompson machine gun weighed over 12 pounds and the Browning BAR was sure no lightweight either.

I will agree that having a lightweight rifle to go hunting with in the mountains at my age is a big plus but surely NOT for a soldier between the ages or 20 to 35 years old. Same goes for the M-14 in its hay day, it worked and worked great.

This whole idea of having a lightweight rifle to carry for the troops is a "COP - OUT" and was the same BS defense contractors sold some Congressmen back in the 1960's and it is still BS today. Soldiers who were taught to use the M1-Garand and the M-14 where taught to shoot and make every round count. Not this pray & spray tactic many soldiers use in combat with the 5.56 caliber rifles the military has troops using today. I won't even get into all the taxpayers dollars that have been spent over the last decade, on trying to find a better solution to the problem of getting our troops a better rifle and caliber.:eek::rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Tracer,
You are very correct in all you state. However, let me give you a few thoughts to chew on. When I swore in as a "Butter Bar" in 1975, the kit I was required to carry as an Infantry Platoon Leader was essentially my LBE with ammo, water, compass and .45- maybe a butt pack as well. I was in super shape- like most of our Infantry today, and was bullet proof. Today, I am amazed at all the stuff these guys must wear- before they can even think about ammo, water etc they have to put on a 30 pound plus vest/armor/helmet with mounts and NVG's. Now that is not bad if you are riding around, however, put it on to hump the hills and it soon becomes total happiness. Oh, and most of the hill humping is 7500 feet plus, usually up at 9500 to 10,500. Then add the radios', NVG's, medical pouches required on all, etc and soon you get up to 70 - 100 pounds of gear.

Again, I sure hope some of my old Ranger buddies do not see this post as I am really, like you, a fan of any .30 cal for "field work", esp in this AO where you can get some 300+ meter hunting in. However, the point in my orginal post was that after going thru 15 mags in a 40 minute fight, I was glad I had all that ammo, (had my Terp carry seven extra mags and he was loading from extra ammo I had him carry for this mission.) Most of the boys went black ( little or no ammo left) in the same time. BTW, these boys can shoot and they did not do any spray and pray- all well aimed single engagements. Also, the fast movers came in around 20 minutes into the party and dropped FLARES, not 500 pounders, and the 155's - well, I will not go into the support, but to say that we had none. Now thankfully, we do not get those kinds of warm welcomes every time we go out, but this is the "fighting season" and these rat bast#$%ds are all out in the hills running around. So my point is only this: from my perspective, an old dog running with these young studs, I was glad that I had all that ammo, and had I been carring an M-14 or 21 as I would have liked, I would have been in trouble. Yes, we did get an emergency air drop - won't go into that goat rope, but it took too long- had to get the wounded out first.

In any event, it is the weapon we have, and we are using it. I have to carry an M-9 as well. This is the first time in 50+years of handgun shooting that I have ever had to carry a 9mm. I do not like it in any manner; but I will take it with me rather than nothing. We can not bring our own .45's in country.

So, yes I agree with you; but must live the reality here as well. Just my 2 cents.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top