The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: 2HOW on June 03, 2010, 04:51:02 PM
-
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
---
-
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/ (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.
-
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 .
-
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?
-
The T&T administration will have some advice for America's youth.
If you can't handle a .308 don't enlist ;D
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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! ;D
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.
-
It ain't the missing that is the problem, it's the hitting and them not falling down that's the problem! ;D
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.
Estonia and Latvia as well, Bush got them back during his first term.
CD, Glad to see you posting, What do you see there, are we all full of crap or what ? ;D
-
Its always a training issue. Teach the troops proper weapons maintance and how and were to place those rounds effectively. Rounds still need to be placed into the CNS area to be effective. I learned long ago the old saying is true, "Train as you fight, fight as you train". Going home for two weeks leave beginning of Jul then back for a second year here.
CD
-
CD, thank you for everything you've done. Have a great stay at home. Be safe.
-
CD, thank you for everything you've done. Have a great stay at home. Be safe.
+1
-
CD, Have a VERY happy and safe leave.
-
CD, thank you for everything you've done. Have a great stay at home. Be safe.
+1,000,000,000,000,000
The same goes for your son.
-
CD, enjoy the leave and your family. Can't say enough how proud I am to have you on this forum and protecting my behind so this old man can sleep safe. Stay safe, stay strong.
-
We all owe ya, CD, and all your Brothers in the service.
Have a great leave and stay safe.
Keep us posted, and thanks again.
-
Thanks for our support. I retired after 24+yrs and have only been home for 6 months since retiring 2.5 yrs ago. Theres still work to be done over here. It will be good to see my wife and youngest son again as we go on a cruise. My oldest son, DIL and grandson are going too. Then my son goes back on his 4th tour to Iraq in Aug. :'(
CD
-
Then my son goes back on his 4th tour to Iraq in Aug. :'(
CD
See, this is too much. When we are in war for national survival, asking someone to enlist for the duration is justified. In a war of choice in a 3rd world shit hole we can take or leave? Four tours is beyond enough. Assuming he's army we're looking at close to 18 months. How many times do you have to put your butt on the line in East Where in the Hell, when your neighbors can't find it on the map and the brass and politicians can't clearly define what constitutes victory? CD, I pray for your son and weep for our country.
FQ13
-
The SCAR Heavy is already in use by certain units. I have heard from operators that they are very unreliable and require ONE specific type of ammo to function correctly. Thats no good either.
The AR's woes would be helped by swapping to a 6.8 piston upper. It would be worlds different. However, I think that would be a short term solution and the lack of ammo currently available doesn't help. They need solutions now and that is something that are government is NOT good at.
-
If our government cant put there foot up someones ass at BP what do you think there going to do for our troops. They know that the 556 is an inadequate man stopper, they have the ability to fix the problem but there heads are up there asses. The red tape and in fighting is the problem.
-
If our government cant put there foot up someones ass at BP what do you think there going to do for out troops. They know that the 556 is an inadequate man stopper, they have the ability to fix the problem but there heads are up there asses. The red tape and in fighting is the problem.
The problem is threefold.
1 Donald Rumsfeld style "cheapness". Millions for sattelite guided gizmos, nothing for grunts.
2 A lack of vision. Why are we cabable of putting a man on the moon, a cruise missile into someone's bedroom window from one thousand miles away, (literally) and get you to and from the battlefield at twice the speed of sound, and we can't come up with a decent $1000 per unit gun? Bullshit!
3 If we wanted to fix it quick (though it woud be non ideal) we could use emminent domain to ramp up AK carbines and M14s by the end of the month. We don't, probably for good reason. Still, it seems obvious that a new caliber and hopefully a new platform is required. I could live with an AR-10 or a 6.8, but I'd like to think we can do better. Hell, come up with something that wil be around for the next fifty years.
FQ13
-
FQ, If the young man has already done 3 tours then he is not on his first enlistment, he has probably decided to make a career of it as well, and that is the job.
-
While I agree that firing the 6.5 or 6.8 would be a great improvement for the AR, I don't think it is going to happen any time soon. I think the more realistic option right now it to improve the 5.56. The Marines have already started using hollow point ammo in Afghanistan, and I think everyone else needs to follow suit. FMJ's just don't deliver enough of there energy on the target. If our troops were using something like the 62gr Horndy TAP round I think the knock down power would be greatly improved. I also think using a M16A4 upper on the M-4 Lower would be a good combination for most of our troops. That would provide the more reliable gas system and increase power of the 20" upper, with adjustability of the M-4 Stock. The 14.5" upper is really useful in the urban environment or for mounted troop with the close confinement of a vehicle, but I think it's a waste of power and reliability for the rest of them.
That's my .02 worth!
-
CD, enjoy the leave and your family. Can't say enough how proud I am to have you on this forum and protecting my behind so this old man can sleep safe. Stay safe, stay strong.
+1 wholeheartedly....
-
Or how about loading a Partition style bullet or the Barnes unleaded kind?
-
Russia Sticks with 5.45x39mm: Russia is preparing a new standard assault rifle, the AK-200. This weapon is based on the 5.45mm AK-74, which replaced the 7.62mm AK-47/AKM series as the standard infantry weapon towards the end of the Cold War. The AK-74 entered service in the 1970s, and twenty years later a replacement was developed, the AN-94. This rifle used the 5.45mm round first seen in the AK-74, but was able to use larger (45-round and 60-round) magazines. The AN-94 also had burst fire (of two rounds, while Western rifles tend to use three rounds). The AN-94 was supposed to replace all AK-74s in Russian service, but due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and sharp cuts in the defense budget, this did not happen. There were also concerns about the mechanical complexity and reliability of the AN-94. That's apparently why the AK-200 is not based on the AN-94. One AN-94 feature that was adopted for the AK-200 was a 60 round magazine… Meanwhile, several additional AK-74 variants have been developed and put on the market. The AK-101 fires the 5.56mm NATO round and has a 30-round clip. The AK-103 fires the 7.62x39mm round used in the original AK-47, for those who have concerns about the ability of the 5.45mm round to stop enemy troops. The AK-102, 104, and 105 are compact rifles designed for the export market in 5.56mm NATO, 7.62x39mm, and 5.45x39mm. All have 30-round clips. (The additional variants seem to be intended for export while Russia seems to have committed to large-volume fire with small bullets for her own use. I’m disappointed that a source that presumes expertise in firearms cannot distinguish between a magazine and a clip [http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html].)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20100605.aspx
--
-
Quote from 2How
"The AK-102, 104, and 105 are compact rifles designed for the export market in 5.56mm NATO, 7.62x39mm, and 5.45x39mm. All have 30-round clips." :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
FQ13s hypothetical conversation with any sane board member, it would sound like this:
"He didn't just do that?"
"Yep, I'm afraid he did".
"Oh shit Fire in the hole! :o :o :o :o
"Run away! Runaway"!!!!!!!
FQ13 ;D