Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:16:14 AM EDT
Saw this disussed at another site. Here is the link they discuss. [url=strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTINF.HTM]Here[/url]
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 6:23:34 AM EDT
Everyone is a critic....... Heck, the phasers on Star Trek are underpowered.......
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 6:39:04 AM EDT
SCHV - Small Caliber High Velocity was what the original ArmaLite "Stopette" and then the AR-15 and then the M16 was all about. The M4 has forgotten velocity was part of the equation and our soldiers are again paying the price for political stupidity. The problems with the M4 and ammunition were well known to the military prior to the Afghan. With the M4 and current ammunition effective range has been reduced to within 100 meters - some say that range is more like 60 meters. A 16" barrel with proper ammunition is about the minimum and 18" barrels are really what's needed. (18" barrels will produce about 3300 fps MV and that's much closer to say the 1963 specs.) Nothing new here. Once again the fighting men are screwed.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 6:40:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 6:43:27 AM EDT
OK that does it. If the SHTF I am leaving my M4gery behind and taking my M1 carbine.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:01:01 AM EDT
All the more reason why I like my AR10T Carbine so much.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:05:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DonR: All the more reason why I like my AR10T Carbine so much.
View Quote
And some other folks are also going to take a look at that AR-10 T Carbine.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:11:31 AM EDT
Yes. It's underpowered. Now, here, hold this target for me, and walk downrange..Thank you! Meplat-
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:11:36 AM EDT
That is one of the reasons bullpups are the future, full velocity in a carbine size package. IIRC We looked at the Steyr AUG long and hard before we went with the M-4. With the AUG at least you would have a proper barrle length. Personaly I think we should replace the M-4 with the new FN-2000, full ambidextrous with forward ejection!
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:21:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2002 7:21:55 AM EDT by 7]
Remember, In their current area of operation they are probably engaging targets at greater than 400 yards. A nice AR10, M1 Garand [;)] or M14 would be nice. [:D]
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:23:32 AM EDT
I was a US MARINE in Somalia and some of the accounts of the Somali soldiers not being killed instantly from 5.56 rounds were true but what most people don't know is that the Somali soldiers were all doped up on a drug very similar to the coca plant called khat. This is how the Somali people could survive the famine that was occurring over in their country. The khat is also what made them crazy giving them the energy to keep on fighting even after they had been shot. The 5.56 round is an effective round within its limits. Shooting someone is not like what you see in the movies some people go down and some don't, most are not killed instantly by gunshot wounds. The 5.56 round was never intended to kill an enemy but to wound him with the theory that if an enemy soldier was wounded it would take 1 to 2 more of his own troops to carry him off the battlefield therefore reducing the number of enemy combatants you would have to face.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:25:32 AM EDT
Yes its been known in combat units for a long time that the M4 has a velocity problem with current spec military ammo. It just can't generate enough velocity with that 14.5" barrel to give good fragmentation. When my unit was out in the field we would request to take a 16" Carbine or 20" M-16 instead of the newer M4 for that reason. The M4 is a great looking and generaly good sub 50 meter rifle and is a great plinking rifle at the range. Its just not up to the task with standard military spec ammo at the ranges most combat situations call for. When I hit a target I expect maximum fragmentation to take it down and keep it down. The M4 is incapable of delivering it. I do however like the idea of the AR10T carbine for that reason alone. Perhaps we can get some combat experienced people in the loop on making decisions on what to equip our troops with. The problems in Somalia and Afghanistan should not be happening.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:27:58 AM EDT
I'm no expert, but I always considered the M4 a CQB weapon. It's interesting our military uses it in a general purpose role.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:30:09 AM EDT
I think that anything short of a .50 will be seen as weak. Of course that's why military types are also issued M-203's, M-249's, M-240's, along with those pesky M-4's. Or the M82A1's, M-24's that may be available, or a plain old grenade. Not to mention all the anti-armor weapons that can be used against enemy troops directly. Or the mortar, atrillery, MLRS, armor, rotary wing attack craft, or fixed wing aircraft that US forces can request support from. More and more I think that a lot of the light infantry weapons are used to distract the enemy forces while the artillery, and air support are on the way. Of course part of the problem counldn't be that our troops sometimes don't hit what they are aiming at, or think that someone getting hit by a rifle round should fly backwards while gushing blood..............
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:35:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I think that anything short of a .50 will be seen as weak.
View Quote
You might want to look at the .408 CheyTac before delivering your final verdict.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:38:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Of course part of the problem counldn't be that our troops sometimes don't hit what they are aiming at, or think that someone getting hit by a rifle round should fly backwards while gushing blood..............
View Quote
I simply wanted to see this statement isolated.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:53:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2002 7:53:40 AM EDT by Golgo-13]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Of course part of the problem counldn't be that our troops sometimes don't hit what they are aiming at, or think that someone getting hit by a rifle round should fly backwards while gushing blood..............
View Quote
This is why the military should issue nothing but .45 caliber 1911 pistols to all armed personnel. It is common knowledge that the .45 hits like a runaway freight train and that a man hit in the pinky at 300 yards by a .45 will be picked up and spun around.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 7:53:52 AM EDT
I saw some charts a while back and the 14.5” barrel M4 looked adequate for the job. As for the Somali soldiers and khat, I believe drugs like this don’t do anything more than numb the bodies sense of pain – allowing that person to run them selves to they just pass out, and when they get shot it doesn’t register either. I hear the same argument about the 9mm pistol all the time about being under powered like the 14.5” M4, but really they will get the job done, a .308 or .45ACP would do a better job in some cases but not every case. - Sulaco
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:05:24 AM EDT
When I was first getting into firearms, I was asking a friend who knew guns, what caliber I should consider. I live by his answer to this day. He said, "If you're gonna be in a rock fight, throw the biggest rock you can, and still hit what you're aiming at."
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:07:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Of course part of the problem counldn't be that our troops sometimes don't hit what they are aiming at, or think that someone getting hit by a rifle round should fly backwards while gushing blood..............
View Quote
This is why the military should issue nothing but .45 caliber 1911 pistols to all armed personnel. It is common knowledge that the .45 hits like a runaway freight train and that a man hit in the pinky at 300 yards by a .45 will be picked up and spun around.
View Quote
Picked up and spun around? Golgo, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that a man hit in the pinky by a .45acp at 700yds or less will be instantly reduced to a gorey pink mist, delayed only long enough for him to emit the bloodcurdling shriek you hear on all the Fox recycled video shows. From about 700yds on out, then maybe he'd just be spun around, also shrieking. It's the shrieking that makes it shoot so well. Check your facts next time, idiot!
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:18:47 AM EDT
Lots of people keep quoting Howe from Blackhawk Down to bash the 5.56mm round. They never seem to account for the fact that Howe was using a CAR-15, not an M4. The CAR-15's 11.5" barrel barely pushes the 63 grain M855 bullet to 2700fps (the velocity required for reliable fragmentation) at the muzzle, much less at any distance. The M4 should get reliable fragmentation out to about 80m - fine for CQB, but less effective at the longer ranges the guys in Afghanistan are probably engaging targets. But again, you do still have to hit them...
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:38:29 AM EDT
Hello! These are from the first edition of Black Hawk Down (hardcover)... p. 44-45: He [a Somali] ducked behind a big tree about fifty yards off, hidden from Eversmann's Rangers, but oblivious to the threat off his left shoulder. He was loading a new magazine in his weapon when Nelson blasted about a dozen rounds into him [from his M60]. They were "slap" rounds, plastic coated titanium bullets that could penetrate armor, and he saw the rounds go right through the man, but the guy got up, retrieved his weapon, and even got off a shot or two in Nelson's direction. The machine gunner was shocked. He shot another twelve rounds at the man who nevertheless managaged to crawl behind the tree. This time he didn't shoot back. "I think you got him," said the assistant gunner. But Nelson could still see the Afro moving behind the tree. The man was kneeling and evidently still alive. Nelson squeezed off another long burst and saw bark splintering off the bottom of the tree. The Afro slumped sideways to the street. His body quivered but he seemed to have at last expired. p. 208 He [Howe] drew a bead on three Somalis who were running across the street two blocks north, taking a progressive lead on them the way he had learned through countless hours of training, squaring them in his sights and then aiming several feet in front of them. He would squeeze two or three rounds, rapidly increasing his lead with each shot. He was an expert marksman, and thought he had hit them, but he couldn't tell for sure because they kept running until they crossed the street and were out of view. It bugged him. His weapon was the most sophisticated infantry rifle in the world, a customized CAR-15 and he was shooting the army's new 5.56 green-tip round. The green tip had a tungsten carbide penetrator at the tip and would punch holes in metal but that very penetrating power meant his rounds were passing right through his targets. When the Sammies were close enough he could see when he hit them. Their shirts would lift up at the point of impact, as if someone had pinched and plucked up the fabric. [continued...]
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:40:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spearweasel: Picked up and spun around? Golgo, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that a man hit in the pinky by a .45acp at 700yds or less will be instantly reduced to a gorey pink mist, delayed only long enough for him to emit the bloodcurdling shriek you hear on all the Fox recycled video shows. From about 700yds on out, then maybe he'd just be spun around, also shrieking. It's the shrieking that makes it shoot so well. Check your facts next time, idiot!
View Quote
You're right; and when you're right, you're right. Clearly, I was suffering from rectally-impacted cranium disorder when I posted this. Thank god there are guys like you out there to point out errors like the stupid one I just made.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:40:52 AM EDT
[...continued] p.235 [Shortly after moonrise...three Somalis moving in are startled by a U.S. soldier shining a white light on them...] ...Howe placed his tritium sight post on the second man and began shooting on full automatic, sweeping his fire in a smooth motion over the third man. All three Somalis went down hard. Two of the men struggled to their feet and dragged the third man up and around the corner. There, those are the direct quotes from the book. A clear failure to stop with 7.62x51, a likely miss with 5.56x45, and a likely hit and a miss with 5.56x45. Eighty percent of what I people post in the various BHD flame fests should go away. I should note that each time that the book describes that operator complaining about the ammunition it's at the tail-end of a diatribe on a host of subjects (Les Aspin sucks for not allowing Armor, the Rangers suck for not being capable, Somalia sucks for being hot and dusty, the leaders suck for getting us lost, and, oh yeah, my rifle and ammo sucks for no giving me 100% one-shot-stops on any target I look at. My armchair commando, Monday morning quarterback take: 1st passage...issue is using 7.62x51 armor piercing ammunition against humans. 2nd passage...issue is using armor piercing ammunition against humans but maybe a miss. 3rd passage...at nighttime, killed the [second] Somali at whom he first lined up his sights. Missed or slightly wounded the [third] Somali that he tried to engaged by walking full-auto fire into him. First Somali not engaged. First and third Somali drag dead second Somali away. Maybe a misapplication of full-auto fire and, again, using armor piercing ammunition against humans. Black Hawk Down is, at best, inconclusive, about the 5.56x45 family of rounds. The only recommendation that can be made is to not use armor piercing rounds against humans. Not even 7.62x51 AP rounds worked. Any rifle round, especially 5.56x45, needs to *fragment* in the body to maximize its damage. Armor piercing ("green-tip") rounds do not fragment. There is the problem. The best measure of wounding capacity is volume of destroyed tissue (not energy, momentum or Hatcher). By travelling faster than ~2100fps, the round temporarily stretches the tissue surrounding the impact area. By travelling faster than ~2700fps, the round fragments and tears that stretched tissue...creating a larger wound volume than the old 7.62x51 Ball round that merely tumbled. Handgun rounds do not travel fast enough to stretch tissue so any fragmenting is of little use. Handgun rounds only damage tissue that directly contacts the round which is why handguns are such poor manstoppers. Any FMJ or Ball ammo passes through tissue with minimal disruption...most forensic doctors cannot distinguish between 9mm and .45ACP wounds. It's a question of what tool should be used. Even .50BMG is only for non-hardened targets. I may be wrong but shouldn't explosives (hand grenade, rifle grenade, LAWs, arty, air-support, etc.) be used against armored targets? Why issue AP small arms ammunition...that's trying to transform the rifle into something it's not supposed to do. Anyway, can we *please* stop using Black Hawk Down as evidence for or against the 5.56x45? It's really not warranted. Please also note that the AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of ~2300fps and crosses below the 2100fps before the 100m mark and, thus, is closer to an M1-carbine than an M14/M1A.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:44:31 AM EDT
Well now that we know that all those M4's are underpowered, I'll be glad to take them off your hands!
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:51:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: I'm no expert, but I always considered the M4 a CQB weapon. It's interesting our military uses it in a general purpose role.
View Quote
THANK YOU for saying this, cause as I'm reading this thread, thats exactly what I was thinking. Why is are military being so dumb!? They need to issue everyone my bushy 20".
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:52:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 8:58:49 AM EDT
Why issue AP small arms ammunition...that's trying to transform the rifle into something it's not supposed to do.
View Quote
Enemy soldiers tend to hide behind and/or wear and carry things that can stop bullets. The military prioritizes penetration over "stopping power" because it's better to get any hit than no hit at all.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:05:10 AM EDT
I agree about Black Hawk Down. We see it quoted often as "proof" that 5.56MM ammo cannot stop enemy troops. Well, the same book "proves" that 7.62MM NATO does not stop people either. If the US wants a compact 5.56MM weapon FOR URBAN COMBAT ONLY, perhaps they should adopt the Chuck Taylor M16 carbine. Chuck Taylor teaches combat rifle courses all over the world. He recommends to foreign nations that use the M16 and who want a more compact weapon, that they cut off the barrel at 16", as was used on the Viet Nam era M16 carbine. For more compact, you can always use the retractable stock. I also think that the M16 HBARs (used as squad autos) should have 24" or 26" barrels, to extend their support range..... Scott
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:13:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Striker: I'm reading Black Hawk down and from the accounts in the book..it isn't that great. During one of the many battles a Delta operator hit a 2 Somalis with full auto fire from his CAR-15. They both went down and got back up and dragged the third wounded Somali away. "Howe again was disgusted with this 5.56 ammo." I'm assuming they were using FMJ which would explain a lot. However..if you got hit with 7.62 FMJ I don't think you would be so quick to jump back up for more. The collateral damage from 5.56 is bad but if it doesn't stop the threat immediately then your still in the shyte. a wounded target is still a threat. It's interesting to note that Randy Shugart(Delta sniper) used an M-14 as his weapon of choice. I would take my issue FN over the C7 they replaced it with any day. I might not have been able to carry as much ammo..but I wouldn't have needed as much to get the job done either.
View Quote
So, there is also an account of a guy shooting a Somali with an M60 7.62mm and HE didn't go down either.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:15:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: The military prioritizes penetration over "stopping power" because it's better to get any hit than no hit at all.
View Quote
With the M4 and current ammunition both penetration and stopping power are deficient. When ammunition is moved into the 70+ grn bullet weight area penetration is more satisfactory but not stopping power.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:19:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:24:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2002 9:26:07 AM EDT by LotBoy]
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Heck, the phasers on Star Trek are underpowered.......
View Quote
Not when set on overload! [:D]
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:26:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By James4: p. 44-45: He [a Somali] ducked behind a big tree about fifty yards off, hidden from Eversmann's Rangers, but oblivious to the threat off his left shoulder. He was loading a new magazine in his weapon when Nelson blasted about a dozen rounds into him [from his M60]. They were "slap" rounds, plastic coated titanium bullets that could penetrate armor, and he saw the rounds go right through the man, but the guy got up, retrieved his weapon, and even got off a shot or two in Nelson's direction. The machine gunner was shocked. He shot another twelve rounds at the man who nevertheless managaged to crawl behind the tree. This time he didn't shoot back.
View Quote
"SLAP" Sabot Light Armor Piercing Which I believe is a .223 round with a Sabot around it so that it can be fired out of a 7.62. So basically a very fast .223 that will not fragment because it has a hard metal core.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:37:44 AM EDT
I am in agreement that the M4 and CAR-15 are CQB weapons. They should not be used for anything else and those who think the military should completely switch to them need to do a little homework. I also feel the same way about going back to 7.62. Yes, it stops the enemy more effectively and penetrates more, but thats not always the answer... The key to winning firefights = Fire superiority To get fire superiority = throwing rounds down range (accurately!) Ever fired a NATO 7.62 on full auto? NOT practical for an infantryman. The 5.56 is THE BEST DAMN ROUND out there for us grunts. The 5.45 guys MIGHT be able to make an arguement, but like I said, do your homeowrk and you will realize the 5.56 is clearly superior. Bottom line.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:07:19 AM EDT
Fine with all the BHD talk, but it appears this is happening again right now in Afghanistan. I don't believe the Taliban are hyped up on drugs. Guess time will tell.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:19:14 AM EDT
An educational perspective from a man who was Company Commander of Hotel Company, Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment in I Corps when the XM16E1 was issued. He has some observations on the weapon itself in part one, but part two is on the 5.56mm NATO round: [url]jdumong.net/delta/m-16Part2.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:22:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tatjana:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: SCHV - Small Caliber High Velocity was what the original ArmaLite "Stopette" and then the AR-15 and then the M16 was all about. The M4 has forgotten velocity was part of the equation and our soldiers are again paying the price for political stupidity. The problems with the M4 and ammunition were well known to the military prior to the Afghan. With the M4 and current ammunition effective range has been reduced to within 100 meters - some say that range is more like 60 meters. A 16" barrel with proper ammunition is about the minimum and 18" barrels are really what's needed. (18" barrels will produce about 3300 fps MV and that's much closer to say the 1963 specs.)
View Quote
Wow, not to nitpick but a 20" is challenged, in my experience, to produce 3300fps with M193, much less M855/SS109. Where did you get this figure? The rest I agree with.
View Quote
tatjana, first let me correct myself - the number should be 3250 fps and not 3300 fps. The information is from my ArmaLite AR-18 owner's manual - that rifle and the semi-auto AR-180 were both produced with 18" barrels.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:28:33 AM EDT
Well, the Isreali snipers with their M-16s don't seem to be having much trouble dropping Palestinians all over the place. Undoubtedly, some guys are using other rifles, but I definitely saw footage of some Israelis sniping or "couner-sniping" with scoped M-16s equipped with Harris bipods. Maybe their using softpoints? Or maybe their just better shots?
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:36:36 AM EDT
Although all this is interesting Noone said you couldn't double tap with a rifle, especially an AR. Soldiers should have both available, an M4 SOPMOD and a M16/M203 Combo. They can just break the M4 down and put it in their ruck. The problem with the AR is there are so many combinations that work, but do different jobs. If I am in a city or dwelling then I want an M4 if I am outside the city in the country or whatever you with half way decent fields of fire I want an M16/203. If there is a shitload of foliage then I want a .308. The only way to get rid of this problem is go to a bullpup with a 6mm or .270 design. Make sure that every kind of gadget can be mounted on the NEW AR. And the only people who currently do this is Armalite. Everyone could use. A Pistol (40S&W,.357Mag,.45ACP) A Carbine (5.56,.308) A Rifle (5.56,.308) A Sniper Rifle (.308,7mm Mag,.50) A Shotgun (12 Gauge, Auto,Pump at least 5 shots) A Knife (K-Bar,or better) All these tools have different uses and should cover you from zero to 1000 yards. Any Yardage after that and well, they arn't close enough. I don't know what to say except some of our guys are being put into situations with less then Optimal tools. Its like trying to use a screw driver to take out a phillips head screw. You can do it, but its gonne be messy. Sometimes you have no choice, but it would be wise to make sure Every Soldiers toolbox is full. Ben
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:44:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Well, the Isreali snipers with their M-16s don't seem to be having much trouble dropping Palestinians all over the place. Undoubtedly, some guys are using other rifles, but I definitely saw footage of some Israelis sniping or "couner-sniping" with scoped M-16s equipped with Harris bipods. Maybe their using softpoints? Or maybe their just better shots?
View Quote
I'm sure they're probably just better shots. Now some have characterized Israeli snipers as poorly trained and unable to do much beyond 600 meters. Of course these same folks believe the Israelis use Mauser 66SP's and 86R's (?) for their bolt gun sniper rifles and the Knights SR-25 for their semi-automatic sniper rifle. However, I'm sure your information is more accurate and the Israelis are simply better shots.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:03:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:21:24 AM EDT
A good friend, who just returned from Afghanistan, said that every Northern Alliance soldier smoked Hash constantly, it was the same for the enemy. This could have some effect. He also reported that they determined among their team that no less than 5 shots would be fired per target pistol or rifle. Also keep in mind that not many bullets are capable of physically stopping a human being. Most hit people stop themselves when they realize they are dying. Adrenaline and drugs will keep someone going until sufficient loss of blood or failure of an organ kills them.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:24:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: I wanted to point out that, despite some common misconception, the "green-tip" SS109/M855 round is [i]not[/i] armor piercing and was not intended to be. Also, the SS109/M855 round will fragment given the correct velocity.
View Quote
Thanks for the correction. James
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:35:45 AM EDT
I would like to add that the OICW is being developed with a 10-inch barrel. 18-inch polygonal would probably be the best with a combat rifle. I think a case more along the lines of the .22 PPC or the .224 BOZ would be better, as you could use a shorter barrel. Perhaps the military should re-examine their policy in frangible bullets. That would solve many of their problems.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:41:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Why issue AP small arms ammunition...that's trying to transform the rifle into something it's not supposed to do.
View Quote
Enemy soldiers tend to hide behind and/or wear and carry things that can stop bullets. The military prioritizes penetration over "stopping power" because it's better to get any hit than no hit at all.
View Quote
Difference in cover penetration between small arms ammunition is small...about the same as arguing 9mm or .45ACP. There needs to be another class of weapon used. Trying to whittle away a bunkered-down enemy with small arms seems like a poor idea whether you are using 5.56 or 7.62. That's the job for fire and maneuver as well as bunker busting weapons that pictures show every third Marine carrying in Afghanistan. The Russians have a LAW-type weapon called the Shmel that overpressures confined spaces. Two-thirds of the medals given to veterans of the Chechen campaigns were given to soldiers who carried this weapon. Besides...if penetration is more important than stopping power then there is no reason to complain in the first place.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:43:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Striker: I've fired an FN-C1A1 (modified) on full auto. FN-C2A1 on full auto and a C7 on full auto. Non were accurate enough to precisely engage targets. Great for getting rounds down range in a hurry to get the enemies head down. But you need controlled selective fire to destroy the enemy. I guess I believe the 7.62 is better for the same reason a lot of people like the .45 over the 9mm.
View Quote
Looks like we're on the same sheet of music. If weight and recoil were not an issue to the every day infantryman, then HELL YEAH, 7.62 all the way. But with 5.56, you can carry twice the ammo for the same weight, and have MUCH more controlled and effective fire (in most cases). The 5.56, IMO, is equally devestating, if not more, than the 7.62, w/in 200m, where most engagements take place. If I'm in a fight over 400m or so, where the M-16 becomes ineffective, so what? Thats when I call in some 60's on his bitch ass and have the 240G pick up whats left of their camel riding asses. Anyway, back to the point 5.56 rules. The M4 looks and it great for handling in tight spots, but is only good for very short ranges. Also, people have to remember to expect realistic results when you shoot your enemy. It's not like the movies where you shoot the bad guy with a 22lr and the whole f$%ing neighborhood blows up. How many times have you seen a deer get shot with a 30-06 and still haul ass for 100 meters before dropping? The only way you're gonna drop someone on the spot is if you get a KILL shot. This means in the heart or head. And when that happens, it doesnt make much a difference if it's a 5.56 hole or 7.62. my .223
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:49:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: An educational perspective from a man who was Company Commander of Hotel Company, Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment in I Corps when the XM16E1 was issued. He has some observations on the weapon itself in part one, but part two is on the 5.56mm NATO round: [url]jdumong.net/delta/m-16Part2.htm[/url]
View Quote
This guy seems to claim that his company could have taken Hanoi if only they were issued the Springfield 1903 rifle. He also seems to claim that the best improvement to the M16 was the 3 round burst.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 12:24:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: An educational perspective from a man who was Company Commander of Hotel Company, Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment in I Corps when the XM16E1 was issued. He has some observations on the weapon itself in part one, but part two is on the 5.56mm NATO round: [url]jdumong.net/delta/m-16Part2.htm[/url]
View Quote
He had a real chip on his shoulder!
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 12:27:16 PM EDT
If I'm in a fight over 400m or so, where the M-16 becomes ineffective, so what? Thats when I call in some 60's on his bitch ass and have the 240G pick up whats left of their camel riding asses.
View Quote
LOL. But seriously, proper techniques and tactics is what makes the limited number of our troops effective. Sure there are drawbacks but we haven't been losing a lot of wars lately. Modern fighting (from my armchair) seems to depend more on support from different layers (ground, air, etc.) than one caliber rifle over another.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 12:34:12 PM EDT
Bring back the M-14 and the M1911, may as well throw boxcars at the enemy....
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top