Dont blame the rifle, blame the round

[2HOW]

In Afghanistan, Blame the Round, Not the Rifle: The death of the M4 has been greatly exaggerated. A bizarre Fox News article appeared last Wednesday: “M4 vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?” …Anyone reading the article would come to the conclusion that rusty AK-47s give the poorly trained Taliban an advantage over U.S. troops armed with M4 carbines, M16 rifles, and M249 machine guns firing 5.56 NATO rounds. It is a supposition based upon ignorance of the battlefield, the training, and the weapons and cartridges themselves. Other than that, the article is fine… The problem our soldiers are encountering isn’t as much the aging M4 (which is getting long in the tooth) as it is the anemic caliber it has traditionally been chambered in. The 5.56 uses a .22-caliber bullet, and that severely limits the potential terminal ballistics of the weapon. There are dozens if not hundreds of stories of soldiers who served in Iraq who had fired 4-5 shots into insurgents at close range with little immediate effect. In Afghanistan, where the ranges are often considerably extended, the effectiveness of the cartridge degrades even further… The story that Fox News missed is a simple one: why hasn’t the Army begun upgrading it’s 5.56 M4 rifles to the more powerful 6.8 SPC cartridge? It offers superior performance at every range, with less recoil and weight than the heavier and older M14. No doubt there will be logistical hurdles to overcome in making such a transition during a time of war, and such transitions aren’t inexpensive, but they require almost no retraining and provide our soldiers with a distinct edge over their enemies… (The advantage of rounds such as the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC is that, with the appropriate upper receiver, they can be fired from the AR-15/M16/M4 platform.)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fox-news-gets-it-wrong-m4-rifle-works-fine-the-problem-is-the-bullet/?singlepage=true
---

[billt]

The post-incident report released by the US Army had this to say:

“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance… However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”

Even without those extenuating circumstances, however, there have been problems. A December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by CNA Corp., conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty. The M4 received a number of strong requests from M-16 users, who liked its smaller profile. Among M4 users, however, 19% of said they experienced stoppages in combat – and almost 20% of those said they were “unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage.”

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

I have no dog in this fight, and I own and shoot several rifles of both platforms. With that said there are articles like this just about everywhere. Some are journalistic crap, others like this one come from somewhat reliable sources. Out of 2,600 soldiers who carried the M-4 into combat 20% had serious stoppages with them. That is a serious problem.

I understand it's tough to keep a weapon maintained in those kind of conditions, but a 20% stoppage rate, (1 out of 5), cannot be tolerated, especially when the enemies weapon is running better. I hope there is an answer to this problem. Enough of our guys got killed in Viet Nam when these things were first introduced, and ran like crap. The .223 round is what it is, a varmint cartridge. That's another argument for yet another day.   Bill T.

[tombogan03884]

Actually I think caliber is the most important consideration.
Range wise the AK and M4 flip a coin, it doesn't matter which you chose.
Reliability goes to the AK, but accuracy goes to the AR hands down.
Truthfully, neither is worth a crap in the conditions presented in Afghanistan. Both are carbines that may be fine for MOUT.
like in Iraq, but ranges are much greater in the Mountains where snipers are taking 4,000 yard shots. add to that a projectile that is little more than an over powered pellet and you have a situation where the average rifleman is essentially defenseless over 300 yards.
I think one possibility is to Replace all the AR uppers with at least the 6.8 and cut the number of carbines by 25 - 50 %, Replacing them with full length rifles .

[twyacht]

Based on ballistics, the 6.8 is a far better round. The 5.56 only advantages are velocity and low recoil.  They work, as posted inside 300yds.

The 6.8 according to Ronnie Barrett at Futureweapons,
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1fdGe4Zoo&feature=related

 another side by side comparison with water jugs, and yes, there is a difference.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAYtwtkisE

Can we get a T&T Admin. to give this a hard consideration for our troops?

[tombogan03884]

The T&T administration will have some advice for America's youth.
If you can't handle a .308 don't enlist 

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Truthfully, neither is worth a crap in the conditions presented in Afghanistan.

The M-14 is far better suited in the Afghan campaign. They're bringing them out of mothballs as fast as they can.  Bill T.

[garand4life]

The M-14 is far better suited in the Afghan campaign. They're bringing them out of mothballs as fast as they can.  Bill T.

If I were being deployed to Afghanistan I would feel much safer taking a M14 than an M16 variant. I really wouldn't mind a SCAR heavy with the 20" barrel either!

[m25operator]

The 6.anything, is superior as a round, but if it is in the AR/M4 platform, the stoppages will continue in the sand box, it just was not built around the environment of that place. The Scar looks good, but convincing the U.S. yeah sayers is minimal at best in this
political environment. I do wonder how well, a well built, AK variant would work, made by U.S. I love the M14, and am old enough, I hate to carry it and the minimal ammo to go fighting with it. But our recent forefathers, did carry it and it works + the ammo. Maybe they should consult Krebs on the AK, and maybe it will be accurate, and the sights will be adjustable to make hits, beyond 200 meters on the fly including windage, and have a good optical sight base, that is tight.

[Combat Diver]

The M-14 is far better suited in the Afghan campaign. They're bringing them out of mothballs as fast as they can.  Bill T.

Not so fast as there is only an estimated 50,000 M14 in inventory.  Still 90,000+ troops in each Iraq and Atsan.  Very few slick M14 here in Astan.  All but one that I've seen this year have been in EBR stocks and Leopuld M3 10x scopes.  They are being used as DMR rifles along side M24s and M110s.  If a soldier misses with the 5.56 he's going to be missing with the 6.8/7.62 also.

CD

[Pathfinder]

Not so fast as there is only an estimated 50,000 M14 in inventory.  Still 90,000+ troops in each Iraq and Atsan.  Very few slick M14 here in Astan.  All but one that I've seen this year have been in EBR stocks and Leopuld M3 10x scopes.  They are being used as DMR rifles along side M24s and M110s.  If a soldier misses with the 5.56 he's going to be missing with the 6.8/7.62 also.

CD

It ain't the missing that is the problem, it's the hitting and them not falling down that's the problem!   

Didn't we send most of our M-14s to Lithuania et al. places under BJ klintoon? Doubt that they want to give them back.