Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/15/2003 3:34:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 12:22:20 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Courtesy of Devl Dog:

Only the squad DMs got M16A4's with the ACOG. They also found that it could be used in tandem with AN/PVS-14 NVD. The bulk of the M16A4's didn't make it into theater in time for them to be issued and boresighted, ect.

Some M16A2's were so worn that the push pins were falling out!

No problems reported with 5.56mm stopping power either, torso and head shots dropped targets just fine. Most shots under 100m for iron sighted guns, DMs got some out to 300m simply because they could SEE them when no one else could.

Though M855 seemed to work well. Interest in heavy bullet ammo still very high.

EDIT: The US Army likes it too www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=189909

ACOG: Many soldiers expressed a preference for the ACOG over the CCO because of its magnification and no need for batteries.

Thing is where did non SOF US Army grunts get ACOG's? Personal buys or?
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 11:16:59 PM EDT
M16A4 with associated combat optic (ACOG 4x), the West Coast’s SAM Rifle ~ All interviewed were extremely pleased with the performance and felt it “answered the mail” for the role of the Squad Advanced Marksman (SAM). All said the fixed 4-power ACOG sight that was included was the perfect solution. It gave them the ability to identify targets at distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in the close in (MOUT/room clearing) environment. As above, many “stacked” it with the AN/PVS-14 to get a true night capability. No Marines present in interviews knew of any situation where the shooter could shoot the gun to its full capability or outshoot it. Interviewees included STA platoon leadership and members who are school trained MOS 8541 Snipers. They saw no need for the accuracy and expense involved in the version being built for the “East Coast” SAM Rifle by Precision Weapons Section (PWS), WTBN, Quantico. The standard M16A4 with issued optic more than satisfied their requirements.
View Quote
Say goodby to the M14.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:33:12 AM EDT
Good info It will also be interesting to hear what the guys from a long term conflict such as in Afghanistan have to say...
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 11:37:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 11:45:15 AM EDT
which 4x acog? ta31? triangle or chevron?
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 11:57:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/16/2003 12:18:03 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By Troy: The combo of 20" rifles & M855 works MUCH better in typical (if there is such a thing) combat situations than 14.5" rifles & M855. Velocity matters. -Troy
View Quote
Perhaps, but the Marines who were not SAW gunners and DMRs generally said that they wanted M4 Carbines. The very next paragraph after talking about the success of the M16A4/ACOG is this:
M4 Carbine ~ Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M16’s. They say that it would have definitely been better in the urban environment because of the confined spaces. Since most of the operators were operating from a vehicle platform, the smaller weapon would have helped tremendously for mounting and dismounting. There were numerous comments that the M16 is too long and cumbersome in the urban fight. Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches. Others were trading the rifle for pistols to go into buildings to allow mobility in confined spaces.
View Quote
And I had a whole thread going of news photos of Marines wielding M9s just like this. In a later paragraph:
Enemy Engagements ~ Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.
View Quote
So they were never out of effective range even for the low ball estimates of M4 performance.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:01:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pbrstreetgang: which 4x acog? ta31? triangle or chevron?
View Quote
TA31F, its the one calibrated for M855 from a 20in flattop, and I think they are all chevrons, not the donut of death.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:19:22 PM EDT
i have heard un-officially that the M-16A4-ACOG combo may be fielded with specialty ammo. presumably 77gr or similar. i have heard from a friend with first hand knowledge that the M-14 derived DMR rifles are a maintenance nightmare in the field and often there are often no deployed 2112s with experience keeping a finely tuned M-14 working. i believe that the west coast implementation of this idea is the superior solution. its an idea whose time has come.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:24:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 2:40:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 5:09:11 PM EDT
I would suggest running another round of gel tests Troy. Because, except perhaps for Afghanistan (which could be explained by long range) M855 is NOT showing poor performance from short carbines. The "evidence" from Somalia has been debunked. Afghanistan is understandable due to the long ranges which are something of a freak in modern warfare. No reports of bad behavior from Iraq from the Army-which has carbines-or from the few Marines that did have carbines have yet surfaced. M855 has multipart construction-perhaps some batches are/were poor?
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 5:38:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 6:04:40 PM EDT
I don't imagine that M855 has much of a future. The 73, 75, and 77gr bullets all fragment better at longer ranges and are more accurate. The DM rifles really need it and it certainly doesn't hurt the carbines performance. We have a REAL AP cartridge now in M995 if you REALLY need optimum penetration and don't have a GPMG or .50cal handy. Dump M855. I don't know what they are going to do for tracer-they may just have to learn to do without. The important thing is that there is little here to support the arguments of the larger caliber cartridge crowd.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 6:12:11 PM EDT
Why not a 230 grain bullet? Yeah! Lets totally defeat the purpose of the round! I'm GAME!
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 6:33:02 PM EDT
IM sent could you mod the quote...
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 10:13:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By markm: Why not a 230 grain bullet? Yeah! Lets totally defeat the purpose of the round! I'm GAME!
View Quote
Huh? [noclue]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 12:24:17 PM EDT
Oh, yah, they also mentioned that the apature inserts in the KAC 600m BUIS fell out unless superglued in place. [url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=189909[/url]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 12:31:26 PM EDT
Unless I am in the Twilight Zone the 300m unit has the removable aperature and the 600m uit has a small aperature only and is adjustable for elevation. I am sure they were talking about the 300m unit. Most people just sight in with the 300m unit with the small aperature then remove it and stow it away in asfe location as its known to get lost easily.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 12:36:54 PM EDT
Its possible that the original author confused the two, but here is the quote:
The flip-up sight on the M4 allowed the soldier to engage targets out to 600 meters. However, the plastic grommet that formed the small aperture was prone to falling out. Soldiers “super-glued” the aperture to the sight.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 10:44:57 AM EDT
In a past issue of NRA Rifleman, they talked about non-SF community CO's asking their boys and gals what they needed for the upcoming conflict. Most wanted optics on their rifles. So out came the impact card and they ordered a bunch of different optics from ACOGS to Aimpoints to even EOTech. I don't remember the exact wording of the article. But it just seems like the armed forces are going to become heavily reliant on optics. Sure hope not.
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 11:00:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2003 11:04:49 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
But it just seems like the armed forces are going to become heavily reliant on optics. Sure hope not.
View Quote
Why? It means they can actually SEE their targets instead of shooting at sounds or muzzle flashes. It also will help them identify if what they are shooting at are badguys or Americans. As long as they stick to ACOGs w/BAC there are no batteries, there are no electrics or moving parts. Its not like breakdowns or increased maintainance tasks are going to be a problem. Besides at night they are already dependant on optics and have been for some time. They either wear on their heads or mounted on their weapon some form of night vision device and most have some kind of laser or IR illuminator mounted. When you are already used to using a optic at night, and doing most of your fighting at night, how difficult is it to add a day optic as well? I am just puzzled how having better vision could be considered bad?
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 11:32:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: I am just puzzled how having better vision could be considered bad?
View Quote
Some fear the New Technology.
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 11:46:05 AM EDT
I am still hoping they get rid of those new fangled primed brass rounds and go back to letting the soldiers load their own ammo from the muzzle. [;)]
Top Top