[Travis McGee]

From an acquaintance in Baghdad. Some interesting observations:

"I don't have enough time to email as I would like but it has been an interesting couple of days. Six bombs today (and two more that the police prevented). About forty people killed. The [al Rasheed] hotel was hit again last night by a couple of mortars and about four rounds into the area around the pool.... The Facility Protection Service Iraqis around the hotel did not have weapons or they could have disrupted the attack. We had structural engineers looking at the place today and they hope to get the place back running in a couple of days.

Please educate tomorrow's warrior leadership about this kind of environment where State Dept Ambassadors are in charge before the war is really over... Make sure everyone on the enemy's [side] understands they have been defeated before you stop. Otherwise they will find themselves with this kind of situation. Emphasize to the CS and CSS guys that they need to train their troops to be warriors. A whole lot of mechanics and clerks are out patrolling, nurses and docs carrying guns also. Lots of reserve lawyers, chaplains, CA, and MSC working in areas normally you wouldn't find them. Chaplains are senior officers in a couple of ministries. Lawyers working environmental and planning. MSC Colonels doing oil etc. Don't assume that because you are a finance or transport officer you won't be manning patrols and checkpoints, etc.

Same for gear. Don't let truck companies and medical folks think they don't all need the best protective gear. Every body needs two weapons. Forget M4s. They don't get enough muzzle velocity generated to go through cinderblocks but M-16s do. We need to rethink small caliber for combat in cities. Need something that kills the close in target not pokes little holes in it. Something like a Thompson submachine gun with a little more powder behind it.

Need to relook night vision for semi-illuminated urban environments.

Everyone loves the .50 cal. Need to relook the TO&E of motorized and transport units so they are more like WWI in the number of machineguns. Every truck in your unit needs a ring mount and a fifty up front and probably another in back. Fire extinguishers need to be able to put out big rubber and fuel fires. 240 Machine guns get great reviews but not enough of them. SAWs are great but poke little holes. They are used as crew served weapons a lot on HUMMVEs without something bigger. All units need to work on machinegun marksmanship.

Sniper training in urban environment where people are living and moving around your position needs a relook . Need rubber pads for guard posts; lots of standing for troops. Powdered drink in MREs need to be geared for 1.5 liter water bottles not canteen cup."

Matt in Smokin' San Diego

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/snakelogo.jpg

[ElToro]

sounds like a fun place to be about now...

I think H&K makes the mp5 in 10mm... maybe beef it up some more for .45 Win Mag

interesting letter.

[Mark Tyson]

Hmm ... how about a .243 FAL as the future battle rifle? Pokes bigger holes. And go back to .45 for crying out loud! Uh oh, now I did it . . .

[SunBear]

The 10mm in a H&K carbine would be ideal and there is a (limited) substitute for the 5.56 coming in Remingtons new 6.8mm (.272) Special Purpose Cartridge---115gr @ 2800fps.....just replsce the upper on an M-16. Happy trails.

[Cosmoline]

The solution is NOT pistol cartridges. Something in the 6.5 or 7mm range would be ideal. The 7mm-08 is pretty awesome and has light recoil and small OAL. Why not use it? I've seen 110 year old 7x57 loads that would blast through cinder blocks like a hot knife through butter. Sectional density is the key, and the 5.56 NATO simply cannot fire long enough bullets.

[techmike]

It's always telling to hear from the folks out on the sharp end of things.

[Travis McGee]

I'd sure like to see that 6.8mm upper on the M-16s. Plus more 50 calibers for the vehicles, not SAWs.

[bogie]

IMHO, a hard long 6mm with a .223 boltface and OAL would be interesting... But you wouldn't have the muzzle velocity. It's a trade-off. Small, light and fast, or fat, heavy and slow...

I'd like to see a Thompson or similar .45 chambered (and magazined...) for one of the extended .45 ACP derivitives... For that matter, isn't the M16 platform capable of using other uppers/magazines? Be a trip to make an upper with a mag well adapter that could use either Tommy or Grease Gun sticks... Or a drum...

[Travis McGee]

Bogie: There are 6.8mm uppers for M-16s, and Armalite makes an Ar-10 in .243.

[Leatherneck]

There are a couple of discussions going on over in Rifle Country about alternative rounds to the 5.56. SOCOM is advocating the 6.8x43mm SPC cartridge for the standard caliber for all SpecWar carbines rifles and light MGs. They claim 1MOA out to 600 yards, with superior stopping power (and presumably, building-piercing). I expect we'll soon see the emergence of a new battle rifle from recent combat ops.

TC
TFL Survivor

[bogie]

Wait a minute here... It's right in front of me, and already out there...

.300 Whisper, loaded to max velocity with a mid-weight penetrator, possibly a sabot-type (would have to confirm function with flash suppressor/muzzle brake/suppressor can). Flatter shooting than the "larger" thumper cartridges = less training required for accuracy.

Minimal mods to lower/mags/bolt.

The .223's major advantage is a doubling/tripling in ammo load that the average grunt can carry. That's a MAJOR thing. Meeting the enemy with only bayonets (especially on an M-16-style rifle...) is not a good thing...

[Harold Mayo]

An M4 doesn't allow the 5.56 NATO round to generate enough muzzle velocity to penetrate a cinder block? BS. A .223 from a 14.5" barrel will easily penetrate a cinder block.

Replace a .223 with a pistol caliber? The .223 only pokes little holes in a target? I'll take a .223 over any pistol caliber any time. I've seen the damage that a .223 can do to a human body during an autopsy and it isn't just a "little hole".

Thompson SMGs for Afghanistan? Come on...someone is on something. The weapons that are being used are pretty much perfect for the job at hand as well as the troops involved.

The 6.8mm cartridge mentioned is more along the lines of a good idea, though.

[CWL]

M16s with 20" barrels, the infantry solution is already available.

Reissue more M60s in .308. Both vehicle and SAW configuration. Better round for application against hardened targets than Minimi.

Continue to issue more .50BMGs for vehicle mounts -an ongoing process. I believe that this was a 'most-requested' weapon by all ground units, luckily, this one has been heard.

Reissue of accurized M14s with NVD mounts for countersniper/urban combat role.

Thompsons firing .45ACP would be useless in RPG dueling ranges. So would the manufacture and issue of any new calibers at this time, none would make it to the battlefield.

[HankB]

Need something that kills the close in target not pokes little holes in it. Why not just switch to softpoints in the .223? After all, it's not a WAR we're fighting any more . . . it's "police work" which AFAIK isn't covered by the Hague Accords. (Which, IIRC, we didn't sign anyway.)

Penetrating structures is more problematic . . .

[Sean Smith]

The M60 is dead, and frankly wasn't that good to begin with. The M240 has replaced the M60 and is giving superior service.

You could easily make a cartridge with about the same overall dimensions of 5.56x45 (so you can have the same combat load), but with a higher sectional density projectile... a .243x45 with a 100gr bullet would have potential. :cool:

[voilsb]

Why not just switch to softpoints in the .223?
No. Softpoints don't fragment well enough in the body. They'd make bigger "holes" but smaller wound cavities. Read www.ammo-oracle.com.

A better solution is to get the 77gr BTHP ammo into wide circulation and keep the M4. Sticking with M855 would be better in all situations (except *maybe* ranges greater than 200m) than switching to softpoints.

BTW, the writer is clearly anti-5.56 biased since the SAW and M16/M4 'pokes tiny holes' in people, even at urban ranges. I wouldn't take his word on that one. Likewise, the M855 out of an M4 will do quite a bit to a cinder block at 100 yards or closer. (btw, the 55gr and 62gr 5.56NATO ammuntion will fragment explosively in "close in" targets. Generally a .223" entry wound and, if there's an exit wound, it'll probably be about 7")

[Keith]

Same old story...

After every conflict we hear the soldiers complain about the lack of effectiveness of the .223 and the lack of reliability of the M16 system.

And everyone repeats the mantra: "The reliability problem is the soldiers fault for not keeping their weapon clean, and the .223 must be effective against humans because any number of ballistics tables and computer programs indicate that it is... "


Keith

[voilsb]

Keith, it's either that or because I've talked to people I trust (NCOs in my platoon) who've used the M16 in combat and describe how it makes people die quickly and with lots of gore. One shot to the chest of a Vietnamese soldier, and he drops with more gore than the guy next to him who got hit 4 times with the '60. Or tales of what the M16 did to Panamanians, or to Iraqi's in the first Desert Storm.

[curt]

Travis,
so what unit is your friend with and whats his MOS?

[moa]

Reading in the papers about the DC sniper trial. All the coroners so far say that the .223 cartridge had an explosive effect on the victims. One woman's brain was shredded. This goes along with the Fackler report on the tendency of the .223 at velocities of around 2700 FPS or greater, to come apart into many pieces.

From what I have been able to ascertain, none of the victims was shot at a distance greater than 80 yards. I have not read any mention of bullet weight.

However, I think a quick fix would be to re-issue some M14s. The 180-200 round basic load should be more than ample for the combat situations they will encounter.

Also, if they insist on Iraqi's to guard many of the facilities, then how about issuing them firearms. Many of the Iraqi guards are unarmed.

Regarding machine guns, what about using the FN General Purpose Machine Gun in 7.62 (.308) NATO?

[KC]

"Something like a Thompson submachine gun with a little more powder behind it."

Maybe a new mark of Thompson in 10mm?
Isn't half of a fight intimidation? The Tommy gun has a great historical reputation in the public mind, and a good rep as a bush gun from Viet Nam. (As an added bonus, it isn't yet another plastic European wondergun, or cheesy SF movie prop.)

"Need to relook night vision for semi-illuminated urban environments."
Why? Whats wrong with it?

"Fire extinguishers need to be able to put out big rubber and fuel fires."
This is a marvelous idea. It would be better to have tires that didn't burn.

"Everyone loves the .50 cal. Need to relook the TO&E of motorized and transport units so they are more like WWI in the number of machineguns."
The Ma Deuce is big, scary and intimidating as hell before someone fires it. It is also hard to win the hearts and minds if they are pissing their sandals. This may or may not be a problem, depending on your perspective.

"The Facility Protection Service Iraqis around the hotel did not have weapons or they could have disrupted the attack."
Why is it that this sounds so damm familiar? Something about an embassy somewhere....

[Keith]

it's either that or because I've talked to people I trust (NCOs in my platoon) who've used the M16 in combat and describe how it makes people die quickly and with lots of gore. One shot to the chest of a Vietnamese soldier, and he drops with more gore than the guy next to him who got hit 4 times with the '60.

Look, it just isn't true! Bigger bullets make bigger holes and more gore than smaller bullets. I've never shot a man with a .223, but men are no different than any other animal when it comes to bullet damage. There is a reason that many states have banned the .223 for big game hunting - and that reason is that it isn't lethal enough!

I have seen a number of deer shot with the .223, and in the right circumstances it can be described as "adequate". You've got very little margin for error and you'd better make a good solid broadside chest shot or you've got a wounded and lost animal. Step up just one more notch to the .243 and you've got an effective deer pill. Deer are about the same size as men.

We are arming our soldiers with a round that is not considered lethal enough to use as a hunting round in many states. Does that make sense?

Keith

[bogie]

Night vision may need to have the sensitivity reduced - if you're getting a lot of blooming from light sources, you're gonna miss targets.

Much of it is designed for "very little" light conditions, and you won't find that in an urban area.

[voilsb]

Look, it just isn't true!You're right. Established NCOs, my dad, and scientific data are all lying, and the legislature which passes hunting laws (and all their other very gun-savvy laws, like the AWB) are all founded on good judgement, data, and reality, and not based on opinions like "because it's smaller, it's *got* to be less effective" or "I don't need no pea-shooter to kill sumthin."

That's also why the US military switched from .308/7.62NATO to .223/5.56NATO, and why the Russians switched from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39. Because it was less effective and because the hunters didn't like it.

[Keith]

What about the established NCO's and the scientific data that disagree?

And what kind of data says that a 60 grain .223 pill is more damaging than a 150 grain .308 pill? Data must be based on physics, and physics tell us that heavier missiles penetrate deeper than lighter missiles. Wider missiles make bigger holes than narrower missiles.

You can disagree with physics if you wish.

Keith

[Jeff White]

Same old story...

After every conflict we hear the soldiers complain about the lack of effectiveness of the .223 and the lack of reliability of the M16 system.

Keith,
Please provide a verifiable complaint about the lethality of either M193 or M855 from Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and the first gulf war.

And what kind of data says that a 60 grain .223 pill is more damaging than a 150 grain .308 pill? Data must be based on physics, and physics tell us that heavier missiles penetrate deeper than lighter missiles. Wider missiles make bigger holes than narrower missiles.

You can disagree with physics if you wish.

In other threads myself and others have provided you with links to alot of the current wound ballistic research on the lethality of 5.56mm rounds. You are the one who continues to disagree with physics. You can continue to disgree with the trauma surgeons and pathologists who actually treat and study the wounds if you wish.

Jeff

[JamesTheScot]

i think the "truth" here is, as is often the case, somewhere in the middle.

i do not claim to be a historian but if memory serves some of the important reasons for switching to the m-16/5.56 were 1) lighter ammo meant more rounds per grunt, 2) lighter aluminum/synth components made the rifle lighter, 3) the lower recoil from the rifle/ammo combination made for easier training, 4) low recoil means quicker placement of mutiple hits on a target.

i'm not sure better lethality was anywhere in there. it's not about lethality in battle in the same manner as it is in hunting. wounding is preferable to killing in the overall scheme of war. it eats up resources and moral. how many terrorists are gonna sacrifice themselves for allah if they start seeing those who have gone before come back maimed and crippled instead of envisioning them resting in paradise with their virgins.

ultimately, i'm not volunteering to take a head or center-of-mass hit from any rifle round. the more i learn about ballistics the more i think putting any round in the right spot is about 85% of it, the mental state of the target is about 10% and the type/caliber is about 5%.

[voilsb]

Yes, JamesTheScot, the lethality of the round had nearly nothing to do with its adoption. I say 'nearly nothing' because it clearly did to a point. It had to be lethal enough. Which means it had to do a good enough job. They wouldn't have picked a round that was quite useless. Likewise, they wouldn't have kept the round in service for 30 years if it wasn't doing it's job of killing people.

Keith, you said And what kind of data says that a 60 grain .223 pill is more damaging than a 150 grain .308 pill? Data must be based on physics, and physics tell us that heavier missiles penetrate deeper than lighter missiles. Wider missiles make bigger holes than narrower missiles. and I'm not arguing with that. Yes, a 150gr .308 at 2900fps will make a bigger hole and punch harder than a 62gr .223 at 2900fps will.

The difference, though, is that the .223 fragments explosively once it enters a body, causing enormous internal damage. The .308 *does* fragment, but not as much so, and under more restrictive conditions.

That means you have two choices: a .308" hole that tumbles and probably breaks into two big chunks at the cannelure, creating a slightly larger wound profile than had the round not broken and probably exits, leaving a less than 100% energy transfer, or you can have a .223" hole that fragments explosively into dozens or hundreds of pieces and creates an internal wound the size of a football and doesn't leave the body, transferring 100% of it's energy to the body.

So would you rather shoot the enemy in the chest and knock him down and put a .308" hole in the front and back of his chest and lung, or put a .223" hole in his chest and shred his lungs, liver, and maybe stomache or heart, with no exit wound?

[only1asterisk]

Bullet fragmentation is a function of bullet design and velocity. There is no reason that a .308 bullet can't be made to fragment however you like. The weight was the reason the 5.56 was adopted and the reason it remains standard issue.

Troops will always complain about their weapons. When your ??? is on the line, nothing is good enough. I think a properly designed 6.5mm, 124 grain bullet at 2600-2700 fps would be an improvement over the 5.56. It could also replace the 7.62 MG's and sniper rifles. I designed a round a couple of years ago along these lines, then I found that a nearly identical round had been considered prior to the adoption of the 5.56. There must be something to it.

I have no love for the 5.56 or M16 family. I don't consider them esp. flawed designs, but I think that there is room for improvement.


David

[jercamp45]

I packed an M16 around a bit and was never fond of it...but I recogized that it is what was issued me so I had better learn it well. And that it was not the most reliable system, so I had better keep it clean. And that it threw little bullets that were not legal for 100 LBS deer, so I had better be precise. That bullet was still supersonic at 500 meters, and it shot flat, true with minimal recoil. But....
There are as many stories where it failed to do the job as there are of it doing the job.
I do not think the answer is in reissuing the M14, or the AK(as much as I prefer that rifle for my personal defensive needs). The new 6.8 m/m round needs to be further developed and M16's, M-4's and SAW's chambered for it. Maybe the 300 Whisper may have some applications as does the new 458 Socom for specialized applications. But, logistics dicatates a stadardized round and I think the 6m/m has to be the next level.
As much as I personally dislike the AR series, it is a VERY versatile platform. Certainly, one can make an upper for, say, .460 Rowland that uses Thompson/Greasegun or better designed mags. Or chamber the HK UMP for the same caliber for special application.
Ma Duece should be everywhere...as it was in WWII....a most useful weapon!!
Of course, I feel the US needs a better service pistol that it currently issues too.
Many have realized that the ONLY way they can fight a superior military force is through guerilla warfare and harrassment tactics....this is really nothing new. Because of the effectiveness of the military/intelligence services, the small closed cell has become norm and they are notoriousl hard to penetrate. Someoe who is willing to give their life in the performace of their mission, is always a hard critter to stop and it shall remain so, for the attack can come from any direction at any time.
Blaming the weapons in use for being unable to stop guerilla campaigns is futile. The Israeli's have the same problems and they are awesome at whoopin butt! There needs to be a new strategy developed to deal with this threat.....special ops, snipers, intelligence, and better weapontry are part of the plan..but ot all of it.
I am open to suggestions on this....though it really is not gun related.
jercamp45
Locate, Close With, Destroy

[280PLUS]

but i do know .223 is prefered because its lighter and therefore a man can carry more of it.

ive also shot a few cinderblocks of my own with my bushy ak shorty and can tell you a winchester 55 gr fmj will penetrate a solid block to about 2.5 inches from 50 yds and it takes about 3 in the same spot to shatter the block.

granted a hollow block will be penetrated easier IF (and thats a big IF) you hit the hollow portion.

i agree with the suggestion of the 77 gr hpbt but would add, why not alternate them with fmj or harder (AP?) projectiles for punching through cinder block

the geneva convention, i think, prohibits the use of hollow points and soft points

but doesnt it also prohibit the bombing of the red cross??

the geneva covention has been tossed out the window by these :cuss:

:fire:

also, i do know that NODs can be washed out very easily by minimal ambient light, they really depend on total darkness to be effective.

eg, we used to stand BEHIND our NOD with a lit match (yes a match) and that was enough to wash it out

by washed out i mean becomes overly bright and nothing can be seen through it.

the same problem was observed with the starlite scopes used in nam, after about 3 rounds worth of muzzle flash, they were useless

m

[Leatherneck]

The big bullet/ little bullet fight has been going on for at least 50 years, and will probably continue as long as there are neophyte riflemen in the armed forces. An expert rifleman can kill his target with just about any plausible round out there. Rate of fire, muzzle climb, recoil, lethality, accuracy at short/long ranges, reliability when dirty, logistics train, and countless other factors all are relevant. The fact remains that complaints about 855 performance in recent dust-ups have been steady and credible. I continue to believe that the stars are aligned for the birth of a new battle rifle. And it will probably be based on the Stoner design--that's the way we do things.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Derek Zeanah]

And what kind of data says that a 60 grain .223 pill is more damaging than a 150 grain .308 pill? Data must be based on physics, and physics tell us that heavier missiles penetrate deeper than lighter missiles. Wider missiles make bigger holes than narrower missiles.

You can disagree with physics if you wish.His point may be that the design of the bullet in our M193 and M885 rounds is such that they reliably fragment at velocities greater than 2700 fps, and that this fragmentation produces a larger wound cavity than a .30" track straight through a body, as we get with issue 7.62 ammo. See here (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/#m193orm855) for a reasonable write-up.

The argument he's making is "fragmenting bullets make for better terminal ballistics than non-fragmenting ball ammo. 7.62 ammo that fragments might be better, but as-is fragmenting 5.56 ammo is a better stopper than 7.62 at all ranges where the round will reliably fragment." Which is something like 200m with a 20" M16, and significantly less with the M4's and shorter. This is being corrected by the use of heavier rounds which reliably fragment at longer ranges...

Check out the FAQ. It's not a dumb argument, and IMHO it seems to be valid if you're willing to trade penetration and performance in excess of 200m for more vicious wounds at ranges shorter than that.

[Keith]

Please provide a verifiable complaint about the lethality of either M193 or M855 from Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and the first gulf war.

Jeff, you almost can't read an account of a battle without running across complaints about the reliability of the rifles or the killing power of the round.
And the army has the standard answers - bad soldiers who don't clean their weapons and poor shooting... I don't know how you've missed all of that.

As for the .223; test it yourself. Shoot an object with one and shoot an identical object with a .308 - note the big difference.
The lack of penetration is at least as important as the wound ballistics. People don't stand up and bare their chest to be shot. They get behind whatever is available from cinder block walls to vehicles to dirt. The .223 simply doesn't have the kinetic energy to break through that stuff. Heavier rounds do.

Keith

[bogie]

Getting outside the box here - why have a SINGLE weapons system? Why not have several variants of the same thing? I mean, a "loose" M-16-type rifle won't be as accurate, but at the same time, it won't be as prone to jam...

The Thompson would DEFINITELY not be a good idea for a desert environment. Tolerances are too tight.

[Keith]

You're right, why have a single system?

There was a thread here some months ago about certain recon elements who had M14's issued one to a squad or something like that. Those guys made really good use of those weapons and were able to clear resistance that other units had to call in air power to clear. What they described was situations where half a dozen Iraqui's just holed up in a building of some kind. The M14's were able to chew them up and clear them. Units without that often had to call in support before they could move again.

So, maybe with all the money and time invested in the M16, we're just stuck with for it years to come. But, why not come up with a heavier squad or even company level support gun? Something along the lines of an M60, but lighter.

Keith

[Chindo18Z]

Some Observations:

1. 6.8 or .243 (or something else) would no doubt offer better performance/lethality...cost is the issue. Refitting a 1,000,000 + man military with anything is a costly proposition unless you are going to reap SIGNIFICANT improvement. We will not see it (except in the SOF community) until monies are found (the same reason the BundesWehr had to take a pass on their pet caseless ammo rifle project and settle for their second choice, the HK 36).

2. The problem w/ M855 "Green Tip" is that the is round was ballistically designed (in the 70's/80s) to provide for both helmet penetration at 600-800 (I forgot which) meters and to match the ballistic trajectory of it's counterpart tracer version for the (then) new M249 SAW. Design requirements specified that the new weapon be able to deliver accurate tracer fire to 800M before tracer burnout. This required the 62 grain vs. 55 grain bullet design and accompanying change in barrel twist. This had little to do with lethality and everything to do with range/accuracy. Add in the fact that the USMC single-handidly dreamed up the M16A2 'cause they wanted a gravel-belly rifleman's piece that allowed them to keep 500M KD range qualification AND whup butt in a buttstock/bayonet fight. Also add in that they couldn't afford it unless they convinced the US Army to buy into it as well (they did). What we wound up with was a weapon that fed a round we needed for our light machinegun in a rifle package approaching M14/FAL weight and length. It's very accurate but not quite as lethal as the barely stabilized 1-12" twist 55 grain pill. At some ranges the M855 (with better penetration) punches thru-and-thru knitting needle holes instead of ricocheting out of the body at a different angle (sideways or base forward and broken in half).

3. We are all want to compare whitetails to men. Deer live in a perpetual condition orange and, absent the ability to FIGHT, have evolved a physical hard-wiring for instant FLIGHT (even when fatally wounded). I've taken an 85 lb spike buck with a 12 guage slug thru both sholders (completely broken), lung (top destroyed), and heart (exploded) and still had to follow him uphill 60+ yards to recover the carcass. Most hunters have seen something similar. So much for stopping power (as far as deer are concerned). Men usually react a bit differently. Some continue to fight but most fall down, then crawl or run for cover to die (with 5.56 hits). 5.56 wounds are nasty and incapacitating (but admittedly not always immediately fatal). Same for 7.62 x 39. Anyone taking a torso shot from ANY military caliber rifle round is in a world of hurt unless they are extremely lucky. Limb wounds are not much better. People occasionally survive even larger caliber (.50, 40mm, 7.62, or .338 hits) but it's due to dumb luck or (in the case of US troops) the services of the best frontline trauma treatment and medevac system extant. Men are not Deer.

4. NODs have improved since I came in the sevice (PVS-2 era). The current Generation III optics (PVS-14, PVS-7, AN/PAS-10, etc.) have anti-blooming featues allowing the operator the ability to look directly at streetlights, vehicle headlights, flares, fire, etc.) without having the device shut itself down. I have used various scopes and NVGs in urban and rural areas of the Balkans & Afghanistan to conduct surveillance, perimeter security, and patrols...no problems. A PVS-14 with 3X magnifier can be used to read license plates at 75 yards on a typical lamppost lit urban street and still be able to be used to peer into an adjacent dark wooded or shadowed area. Todays US Military owns the night...believe it.

5. Regarding machineguns and the passage of time...The FN GPMG (also known as the MAG 58) has been in the system for a number of years and is now the standard U.S. medium machinegun (M240B/M240G). The M60 is almost completely out of the picture. Some units still have M60s (noticed an M60 equipped helo door gunner on a TV news report from Iraq the other night) but the torch has been passed. About time. The Pig is dead... long live the new Pig. Apologies to those who loved the gun during Vietnam Era, but you would toss your 60 onto the scrap pile without a second's hesitation after firing and carrying the M240. It is just a better weapon...period. The M249 has also been with us since the 80s and finally our guys have a weapon for the fire team auto rifle role (once filled by the BAR). Not as much range or punch, but easier to carry, more ammo, ammo compatability with M4/M16, and better at supressive fire for all useful ranges.

6. The Hague Accords regarding ammunition need to be scrapped. Our 9mm pistols would at least be adequate if we allowed our troops the luxury of the same modern expanding rounds with which we equip every PD in the country. If they're good enough for domestic US felons, then they are good enough for foreign enemies. .45 or .40 would be nice but...see #1 above. What's more humane...a cluster bomb or an expanding 5.56?

7. In accordance with point #6 above, the simplest, cheapest, and most effective route for the fixing the Great 5.56 Effectiveness Controversy would be to REDESIGN the existing 5.56 bullet for MAXIMUM LETHALITY at COMBAT RANGES. This would entail a developing reliably feeding expanding bullet with explosive wounding effect on the human body. Even at a slight sacrifice in accuracy or range (beyond 400M). Most combatants can't see a man-sized opponent (wearing earth tones, possibly camoflaged, probably running, or only partially exposed) at this distance. Most third world troops have the same problem in reverse PLUS abysmal marksmanship skills at all ranges beyond 50M. If you are shooting at me with rifle fire from 500M and didn't get me with the first shot, I am going to put a machinegun, airstrike, mortar, or sniper rifle on your vitals. From behind cover and concealment. The idea that a platoon of guys equipped with M14s are going to turn the tide of battle just doesn't wash. There are too many tradeoffs (for the worse) to balance against the possible gains of being able to fight a WWI style long distance rifle exchange with the enemy (even in the desert or mountains). The idea is Fire, Movement, & Combined Arms...not re-inventing Sevastopol. BTW, I LOVE the M21 and think a squad designated marksman is a great idea, but we already have the SPR version of the M16 to fill that niche (to which numerous dead Afghans & Iraqis could attest were they able).

8. I have seen a number of people hit with a wide variety of calibers (including 5 persons knocked over like bowling pins by .38 special 200 grain LRN and a still living guy with a 40mm thru the chest). Some lived. some didn't. A few continued to fight. Most didn't. Not a one of them ever stood up and said "Thank You Sir, May I have another?". Not everyone hit by 5.56 dropped instantly like a sack of bricks but, if they weren't quickly carried into a trauma surgical unit, they died. In any event, they were out of the fight within seconds of being hit.

9. British Infantry School used to routinely train their troops to fire SA-80s/ L85 thru walls made of two layers of standard red firebrick (2 layers across the short width) using the SS109 / M855 round. This was done to prepare troops for urban combat in Northern Ireland and to ingrain the habit of shooting foes thru walls (for which the new round was superior to to old M193). Of course 7.62 will out-penetrate 5.56 , but at a penalty of twice the carry weight or half the ammo. There are trade-offs for everything.

10. Opinions (like mine) are like you know what. YMMV ;)

[moa]

I used to carry an M14 in the Army. Not far, thank God.

One other thing about an M14, as a last resort you can beat the enemy to death with it, and not damage the piece.

By the way, M14s were issued in Gulf War I. Needed to engage the enemy over typical long desert ranges. Understand they functioned flawlessly.

[Leatherneck]

Refitting a 1,000,000 + man military with anything is a costly proposition 'Course, not everybody's a shooter, but besides that, if we can't find a few hundred million bucks somewhere in a $300 Billion defense budget, then we're not spillin' enough. ;)

TC
TFL Survivor

[280PLUS]

i guess i could have figured that though,,,its been a while since i seen one

:rolleyes:

:D

[Covey Rise]

The 5.56 Nato round was chosen over the 7.62 Nato because it wounded people more, which in a war a wound is better than a kill, because it takes 3 people to take care of one wounded and none to take care of a stiff.

Therefore, the theory was a less powerful round, more wounds, plus a higher rate of fire, more ammo per trooper, more rounds down range, equaled to a theoretically better round.

Now for fighting guerilla warfare, what you need is sniper or counter sniper weapon. Something that will do the one shot one kill deal. For building clearing a auto shotgun. For general guard duty, a 6mm gun or 308.

my .02

[Keith]

The 5.56 Nato round was chosen over the 7.62 Nato because it wounded people more, which in a war a wound is better than a kill, because it takes 3 people to take care of one wounded and none to take care of a stiff.

That's an urban myth, or a military myth, or just a myth!

Nobody has ever postulated that wounding the enemy is preferable to killing him. Still, the story has been repeated so often that it's become "truth". In practice, wounded men keep shooting at you while dead men don't. Those wounded men may become a logistical burden after the smoke clears, but during the fight most of them just keep shooting at you.

Keith

[KC]

"Nobody has ever postulated that wounding the enemy is preferable to killing him."

Actually, I thought that was the general thinking in the MacNamara period, if not the verbatim form of the guy's idea.

[Balog]

As much as I've heard the "wounding is better than killing" theory, I've never seen a shred of evidence to support. I could see a wanker like McNamara doing something like that, but no evidence to support that he did think that. Anyone have any idea where this comes from?

[Keith]

The story about wounding the enemy being better than killing him was widely repeated by just about everyone at the time, and it's still repeated by DI's today. But, it's not based on anything that came from Stoner or the Ordnance Board or anyone who knew what they were talking about.

It's like those stories about the .223 hitting people in the knee and coming out the top of the head (or whatever). People really believed that in the early sixties, but when you look around you find that nobody who actually knew what they were talking about was saying that. It was just "scuttlebutt".

It's true that the .223 is more likely to only wound an enemy than a heavier round, but it's not true that anyone who formulates policy thinks that is a desirable thing.

Keith

[Derek Zeanah]

Actually, I thought that was the general thinking in the MacNamara period, if not the verbatim form of the guy's idea.That's what my dad was taught in ROTC in the late '60's.

[Keith]

Anyone interested in the bigger picture shuold read these links.

http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html