[IrvJr]

Hello,

I don't know if this has already been posted, but I thought I post it here in case it hasn't.

I saw the article on sixgunner.com's forum section. It's a reprint from the stars & stripes. I couldn't find the original article (dated 10/24/02) on the stars & strips web page.

*************************************************
http://forums.sixgunner.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=730
*************************************************

*************************************************
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=11177
*************************************************

*************************************************
*************************************************

Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Marines choose M-16A4 as infantry rifle


By Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, October 24, 2002

The Marine Corps chose a new infantry rifle, and it’s not the short
assault rifle with which the Army equipped soldiers in the Afghan campaigns.

Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., announced last week it
would buy 65,463 of the M-16A4 service rifles for infantry Marines
between now and 2007.

The new rifle resembles the M-16A2 service rifle in use now but allows for add-on parts as emerging technology warrants.

After head-to-head comparison tests, the Marines rejected the M-4, the shorter rifle the Army issued to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.

“The ground board chose the M-16A4 over the M-4 because it had a lesser frequency of malfunctions,� said Marine Corps officials from
Headquarters Marine Corps in a prepared statement. “The initial units
will be fielded to Ground Combat Elements.�

The M-4 received sharp criticism from soldiers who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier this year in Operation Anaconda and Mountain Lion.
Some soldiers complained bullets used in the rifle lacked stopping
power, according to a survey Army officials conducted. They also noted that heat shields in the hand guards often rattled, prompting soldiers to remove them, only to burn their hands from overheating hand guards.

Marine support units will continue to use the M-16A2 rifles.

The old rifles were nearing the end of their life cycles and needed
replacement, according to the Marine Corps statement. But Corps
officials also wanted to be able to integrate attachments Marines could need for different missions, such as flashlights, laser sights and a rail system for interchangeable sights and scopes.

In a head-to-head performance comparison between the M-16A4 and the M-4, a shorter carbine version with a collapsible stock, Marine officials found few similarities.

“Both weapons have flat-top receivers with the 1913 Military Standard
rails for mounting optics, as well as forward rail hand guards,� said
Marine Capt. John Douglas, project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command.

The new rifle can handle standard rifle sights plus night vision options and scopes. The rifle also can be fitted with a vertical forward handgrip.

But that’s where comparisons end. The M-4 is 10 inches shorter and one pound lighter than the current M-16A2.

Marine officials found some deficiencies in the M-4. In tests and
surveys conducted last July at Camp Lejeune, N.C., most Marines
preferred the M-4 over the longer M-16A4 for most combat situations, but the M-4 had more malfunctions, they said. The comparisons were based on Infantry Training Standards and reviewed by Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity.

“Though the number was very low for each weapon, the M-4 was found to
have three times the number of weapons malfunctions as the M-16A4,� the statement read. There was no significant difference in accuracy between the two rifles.

Several Marine units already use the M-4, including Force Reconnaissance platoons, Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security teams and Military Police Special Response teams. Those units will continue to use the M-4, and the Marines still may purchase more in the future after corrections are made to reduce malfunctions, said the Marine Corps statement.

*************************************************
*************************************************

[cheygriz]

Good choice! M16A4 for infantry, and M-4 for Specops. I think they've got it covered.

[CaesarI]

I can't imagine why they'd choose a more reliable, flatter shooting, rifle that allowed its bullet to have a greater effective fragmentation range...

None of those things matter at all what really matters is that you have one of them shorty "carbines" that look cool oh wait... this is the American Marines, not the Italian Army...

Good choice.

-Morgan

[BigG]

:D

[Erik]

"We like that one, but chose this one because it works."

Ahhhh. Refreshing.

[Skunkabilly]

Why would the M4 malfunction more? Isn't it built on the same action, or does it have something to do with the gas system?

(AR ignoramus)

So what is the M-16A4, a full length 20" barrel with rails galore handguard?

[Nightcrawler]

The M16A4 is like an M16A2, except (I belive) it has a detachable right sight assembly (carry handle) like the M4A1 carbine. With the popularity of optics, the flat tops are seeing widespread military use.

[dude]

good!!

I've been confused by what the M-16 has turned into anyways. When I was in the Army (84-92) we allways had A1's because we were an Aviation Unit and did not have the latest & Greatest stuff. No biggie. But then I started to notiice my M-16A1 got heaiver one day.

"hmmmm.........well look at that fat barrel, and what's up with that goofy round fore-grip??" I says. Still A1 sights though but I miss my triangle grips!

It seems that the powers that be have come up with a new heavier round that needs a tighter barrel twist. Whatever............ it shoots just fine at the range.

Although I make a mental note that my origional rifle now no longer has the unstable bullet that I had grow so fond of that would do all sorts of horrible things to some jackass that might someday be trying to kill me!

Well the Army and I part ways and soon I see that thay have changed the design again. The new heavy round with it's heavier tighter twist barrel is now this short M4 thing! .....sort of takes away some of the ballistic advantage of the change in the first place methinks. But after lugging around a very short M-16 (A1 something or other?) for a bit I can see the appeal!!

Either way I value or fine Marine Corps opnion on the subject and have no doubts of it's merit.

[Nightcrawler]

I wonder if this'll start a rash of AR-15 makers churning out M16A4geries, following in the M4 clone craze? An M16A4 clone makes more sense than an M4 clone with a fake collapsing stock.

Lots of people like the carbines 'cause they're lighter. My M16A1 is lighter than a 16" HBAR-15 carbine. If they'd make an A1 or A2 weight barrel in a 20", ala an M16A4 clone, they'd probably sell a lot of them. As is, every 20" AR-15 produced now has a heavy barrel, causing it to weigh like eight and a half pounds empty....

[Kharn]

Doesnt the sight tower on the detachable carry handles only adjust to 600 meters and not 800 like the A2 sight towers?

Kharn

[El Tejon]

dude, you mean weight is important to someone actually using a weapon?:rolleyes: Go figure!

[Marko Kloos]

Well, whaddaya know. The best riflemen in the U.S. military pick the more reliable rifle over the cool-looking one.

Would be interesting if the M4 ended up taking over the M1 Carbine job...a short and lightweight carbine for REMFs, cannon cockers, and mortar luggers.

[dude]

..........not that there is anyting wrong with being a REMF


pround former CH-47 mechanic/crewchief here!

[Redlg155]

Doesnt the sight tower on the detachable carry handles only adjust to 600 meters and not 800 like the A2 sight towers?

Yep. As I understand it is the mechanial limitations of the sight design on the removable handle sight.

I think it's a great decision for them to move to the A4. A better choice would be to move to a larger caliber, perhaps a 6mm, but that's another discussion.

For Civilian users the M4 will still remain more popular. It just doesn't look as cool as the longer rifle. I haven't seen the sales figures on rifle configurations, but I would venture to say the 16" models are more popular.

Good SHooting
RED

[Badger Arms]

M-16 -- Full-Auto, no forward assist, 1-12 Twist (Air Force Model)
M-16A1 -- Full-Auto, Forward Assist, (Vietnam Model)
M-16A2 -- Burst, New Sights, New Handguard, New Stock, 1-7 Twist
M-16A3 -- Full-Auto, Flat-top
M-16A4 -- Burst, Flat-top

[deleted text, I was wrong]

[Badger Arms]

M-16A4
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/M16a4.gif


M-16A3
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/M16A3.jpg


M-16A2
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/M16a2-2.jpg


M-16A1
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/M16A1.jpg

[Gargoyle]

Let's see.

Buy 65,000 new post-86 rifles @$650 = $42,250,000

Sell 65,000 un-needed used pre-86 M16 rifles to the public @$7,000 = $455,000,000

A profit of $412,750,000

Not that the government cares about $412 million.

[El Tejon]

Gar, don't we wish!!! From your keyboard to God's eyes.

The last thing the government wants to do is arm us, especially now. Remember what Clinton did to all those M14s rather than alter them and sell them to us!

[Slick]

BadgerArms,
I agree with you there, especially with the concerns/complaints lately about the number of 5.56 rounds needed to neutralize the BGs. I think the burst function may have something to do with that. Concentrated, full auto fire might remove that concern.
Besides, wasn't the point of the 5.56 that you could carry LOTS more ammo? :confused: What the heck's it for if not to shoot somebody with?
Slick

[Redlg155]

I agree with you there, especially with the concerns/complaints lately about the number of 5.56 rounds needed to neutralize the BGs. I think the burst function may have something to do with that. Concentrated, full auto fire might remove that concern.


Ok..wouldn't it make more sense to carry a more potent round than to have to shoot the enemy numerous times to get the same results?

Good Shooting
RED

[Nightcrawler]

I personally don't mind a 10lb rifle, if it's a loaded FAL or Garand.

If it's a 9lb AR-15, it bugs me though, because my issue M16A1 weighs like seven. I don't mind heavier weapons, so long as the weight is necessary. It's not necessary for a 20" AR-15 type to weigh nine pounds.

My guard unit still has M16A1s. They've been upgraded kind of piecemeal. Some have A2 stocks, just about all have round handguards.

Most are Hydra Matics. Though there are some REAL old ones that are marked "COLT'S AR-15" with an "M16A1 MOD" stamped on there. In other words, they're original Colt AR-15 receivers modified to M16A1 standard. They're the old ones that don't even have the ridge around the mag release button.

The M16A2s we had in basic were converted A1s, a lot of them. Quite a few were made by FN, who now produces M16A2s for the US Government, IIRC.

From having carried and shot M16A1s, an M16A2, a Bushmaster XM15E2S postban 16" carbine with A1 sights, heavy barrel, and AK style brake, and a Professional Ordnance Type 97 carbine, my favorite AR-15 variant remains the M16A1.

It's short, light, and handy. The Bushy was shorter (by a whopping 4"), but weighed more. The C15 was lighter and shorter, but had reliability problems and lacked iron sights, as well as having an overall flimsy feel to it.

If somebody made a semiautomatic, post-ban M16A1 clone, or even an M16A2 clone, I might actually be tempted to buy another intermediate cartridge rifle. I don't really have much desire these days for rifles with barrels shorter than 18-20", and don't really want a carbine. But modern 20" AR-15s weigh about two pounds more than they should do to the excessively heavy barrel. If I'm going to lug 9+ pounds, it's going to be the FAL.

Or, I might get an AR-180B. It's light, handy, and has a 20" barrel. Still, though, not a huge priority. As I said, though, I do wish somebody would make an M16A1 clone. I don't care about the barrel twist (is there any reason you need a heavier barrel to have a different twist rate?).

[Kharn]

The military designates a full auto flattop as M16A3, M16A4 is a burst limited flat top, see: http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csi/satoc.htm#M16A2 and http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/m4.htm

Kharn

[Marko Kloos]

Kharn is correct. An A3 is a flattop with FA sear, an A4 is a flattop with burst capability. A semi-auto civilian flattop would be more accurately designated as an A4 rather than an A3.

[Badger Arms]

You are correct, I've edited my post. Darn, that means the Marines still don't trust their grunts with a full-auto M-16.

[Amish]

Haven't these idiots in the military ever heard of the 16" barrels? If some like the M4 and some like the M16, why not meet in the middle. If 16" is no good, make a 17" or 18" barrel. Why does it always have to be 20" or 14.5"?

[Kenshin]

How's the choice looking four years from this decision?

[dm1333]

"Haven't these idiots in the military ever heard of the 16" barrels? If some like the M4 and some like the M16, why not meet in the middle. If 16" is no good, make a 17" or 18" barrel. Why does it always have to be 20" or 14.5"?"

Seems to me like the 20 inch barrel is the best choice because the extra velocity gives more lethality to the round. From my brief interactions with the Corps they seem to know what they are doing.

[Nightcrawler]

How's the choice looking four years from this decision?

Another thread back from the Dead.

I think the Marines are finding the long A2 stock is more cumbersome than the longer barrel, actually.

My opinion has changed from four years ago. I love short barrels now. I didn't in the past.

Flip-flopping like John Kerry. I should run for congress!

[Frog48]

I think the Marines are finding the long A2 stock is more cumbersome than the longer barrel, actually.

I've always wondered why they dont make a version with the 20" barrel, but with a 6-position stock? Then the individual serviceman could set the length to better fit themself.

Sure, it would look goofy, but if it works, who cares?

[Oohrah]

Marines can't get hang of spray and pray. What is now almost
50 years when they ditched the M-14 for a system that still doesn't
work. No clue who talked the powers to be, into caliber 22 for anything
effective. Added stuff helped specialize to work, a little better, to
still substandard in caliber first, and platform second. Short range caliber
maybe but the further out it travels the less velocity and bullet energy
remains. Have no clue how many times they changed barrel twists and
bullet weights to at least get the bullet to halfway perform. The tumble
some speak of was due mainly to wt. vs twist and the bullet having a
yaw leaving the barrel so solid hits caused the bullet to tumble. Guess
what? Can't hit squat at any distance thus, spray and pray.
Gee, the reason behind the change to be able to lighten the load to
hump more ammo makes sense now!!! Let's see, we got an 8 to 10 pound
weapon with a no way near effective round. Talk a while back was for
Marines and Spec. Ops. to use the same platform and bump uppers to .28
cal. Somewhat the right direction. No matter what you think of 223,
it isn't a long range effective two legged stopper.
Wonder who will produce these wonder rifles. Last I heard, Colt lost the
contract and Berreta is in line. Also being considered is larger caliber
than 9mm for side arms. Why would these considerations be made if smaller
is better and adequate? Guess politics is a great thing when selling
weapons to the public, and spending some dollars! Does China still make
our Combat boots and Israel take up the slack of producing 223 ammo
because Federal can't keep up with running 24/7? Remember when we
used to kind of do our own thing once.
Semper Fi:D :D

[HorseSoldier]

I believe they've been buying a number of M4s in the meantime to supplement the M16s they decided to go with.

[George Hill]

So once again the replacement for the M-16 is another M-16. Neat.

[Kenshin]

I'd like to hear something from the Marines who lug around the standard length M16A4 for urban combat. Is it really as bothersome as the soldiers who now have M4's make it out to be?

[EvisceratorSrB]

My opinion of the M16A4 is that it is better than the M16A2. Also, the A4 is more suitable for mounting optics and such on it than the M4. It seems to me to be a little bit better balanced.

I lugged the M16A2 and A4 around. I have little experience with the M4, but enough to say that it jammed more than my A4. My personal opinion is that the A4 is the better performer. I have no idea why, but the A4 jams a lot less and deals a little better with carbon build up. They don't teach us why, they just tell us it kills better so we agree.

[Medusa]

How to soldier: Heckler & Koch’s HK416 upgrade tackles the M4 and M16.
Form Jane’s International Defence Review, Oct. 2005.

By Charles Q Cutshaw

It is fairly common knowledge that the special operations community has long had reservations about the M4A1 Carbine. Lethality problems first surfaced in 1993, when Somali gunmen who had been repeatedly shot by Delta Force soldiers were able to continue fighting.
But lower than expected lethality is not the only issue with the M4A1. According to a 2001 Special Operations Command study, changing the M16 to a short-barrelled car- bine configuration creates a mechanism that approaches or exceeds the weapon's limits. The study states that all M 16-derived car- bines are "fundamentally flawed" for a variety of reasons. Shortening the gas tube gives rise to several undesirable side-effects, including early timing, in which the bolt is unlocked and moving to the rear while the cartridge case is still adhering to the chamber wall under residual pressure from the fired round. This causes failures to eject, separated case heads and other malfunctions.
The M4A1 has generally required intensive maintenance by its Special Forces users to keep it operational. Such problems have not arisen in the more common M16 series rifles because the latest M16A2 versions fire three-round bursts, which limits stress on the rifle, and because problems that are inherent in the carbine do not exist in full-length rifles.
Quality control
The main users of carbines are special operations units; and the nature of the missions these elite units undertake often leads to their M4A1 carbines being used in ways that were not envisaged when they were designed. Special operations users frequently have to lay down heavy volumes of fire to break contact with larger enemy forces. They also often add relatively heavy accessories to their carbines under the Special Operations Peculiar Modification (SOPMOD)XModular Weapon System (MWS) Programmes. The addition of such accessories not only adds weight to the weapon, but can also reduce its reliability. According to the study, the M4Al's reliability has been further compromised by a decline in quality control.

Specific M4A1 deficiencies include problems with reliability, safety, accuracy and ergonomics. Reliability problems have included failure to extract, failure to eject, broken bolts, failure to function in extreme cold and severe malfunctions in over-the-beach operations. Safety-related issues have included frequent cookoffs, burst barrels and burst receivers when the M4A1 has been used in over-the-beach or riverine operations and the barrel has filled with water.
Accuracy problems have included barrels becoming loose or shot out after firing a relatively low number of rounds, rail systems not retaining zero and general difficulties controlling the M4A1 in full automatic.

From an ergonomic standpoint, problems have been identified with a poor cheek-weld area on the butt-stock, , lack of ambidextrous controls, poor pistol grip and vertical foregrip geometry, and "multiple ergonomic deficiencies in the SOPMOD/ MWS systems". The most serious problems have involved jamming and overheating. Ultimately, it was concluded that a complete redesign of the M4A1 would be necessary to resolve the inherent issues - a programme with an estimated cost of up to USD2 million. Although a carbine reliability parts set was developed to address the issues identified, it was no more than a 'band aid' on a system that SOCOM considered to be flawed.

Another fundamental problem with the basic AR (Armalite Rifle) design arises from Stoner's use of a gas system similar to that of the Swedish Ljungman. This blows fouling and gases back into the rifle's receiver: a major flaw that makes the rifle sensitive to ammunition certain types of ammunition, which can generate quantities of carbon fouling, causing serious problems.
The US Army learned this lesson early as it specified ball powder for 5.56x45mm military ammunition. This powder quickly fouled the receiver and, in combination with some other misunderstandings regarding the M16A1, resulted in the deaths in combat of soldiers and Marines whose rifles ceased to function due to fouling, earning the rifle a reputation for poor reliability.
The fouling problem was quickly rectified by switching powders, but the basic AR remains a 'dirty' gun that requires intensive cleaning and maintenance. An entire generation of US service personnel has grown accustomed to this as the norm, although older military hands recall the American Ml and M14, FAL/L1A1 and Heckler & Koch (H&K) G3, which did not need the the high level of maintenance required by theM16.

After that comes the hype of HK 416, but I think this should cover it, why the M4 could be less reliable than M16.

[HorseSoldier]

Lethality problems first surfaced in 1993, when Somali gunmen who had been repeatedly shot by Delta Force soldiers were able to continue fighting.
But lower than expected lethality is not the only issue with the M4A1.

Charles Cutshaw may have a pretty spiffy resume when it comes to writing about guns, but I'm not entirely clear on how he thinks he can include this claim in an article about the HK 416 without blushing.

Lethality problems . . . solved by purchasing a 5.56mm weapon with a couple inches less barrel than an M4A1? Hmmmmm. HK must have some really nice press junkets going on. :rolleyes:

[texlurch]

"Spray and pray" + USMC = nope! We are taught to actually aim and hit what we are shooting at.

No accuracy? Qualified just fine at 500 meters with open sights, thanks much.

(wish my eyes were that good now-adays.. tough to see 100 now!)

They have more issues with the 16" gas system, but no appreciable difference in accuracy compared to a 20".. someone needs to introduce them to the mid-length gas system on a 16". A little better sight radius and reliability, and less weight.


Still think they made a good choice, between the available options to them; even though I am not a BB gun fan... :neener:

[Zach S]

As is, every 20" AR-15 produced now has a heavy barrel, causing it to weigh like eight and a half pounds empty....
Yeah, I dont see many 20" government profile or pencil bbl ARs on the shelves. Most of the ones I've picked up were HBARs, which is probably why I dont own one. One of my thompsons, when loaded, weighs about 15lbs or so, but its pretty well balanced since its heavy everywhere. A 20" HBAR is too front heavy for me, doesnt balance worth a crap. I did handle one that was pretty well balanced, but with the HBAR up front and the lead weight in the stock, it was just too heavy for an AR.

I've always wondered why they dont make a version with the 20" barrel, but with a 6-position stock? Then the individual serviceman could set the length to better fit themself.

Sure, it would look goofy, but if it works, who cares?I'm planning on a goofly looking rilfe like that one after I get my 16" put together.

[Onmilo]

To answer one question here,
'Why doesn't the military use the 16" barrel instead of 14.5" and 20" barrels?'

Because the issue bayonet will not fit on a 16" barrel unless you move the gas block/front sight assembly 1 1/2" forward and that will affect reliability even worse than the short barrel guns are now experiencing.
There is no ballistic advantage to increasing the barrel length from 14.5" to 16" either.

Since that article was written about the Marine decision new modifications have been implemented to improve the M4A1 rifles.
Namely the addition of chrome silicone extractor spring, a polymer 'donut' and black buffer and a slight re dimensioning of the extractor edge angle along with clearance cuts in the receiver.

New magazines with improved follower designs have also improved reliability of all M16 weapon systems.

Heavy barrels are advantageous to full automatic M4 carbines and National Match rifles.
They offer no advantages to the 3 shot burst fire M16A2 rifles which cannot be made to fire fast enough to cause the weapon barrel to overheat to the point it reaches a bursting tempurature.

When you add a heavy barrel to an M4 rifle the 14,5" barrelled weapon reaches the same weight as the full size M16A4 hence the Marine decision to stay with the longer barrel platform.

The biggest problem with the current collapsing stock on any of the M16 rifle systems is the fact that it just isn't all that durable in actual combat situations.
The stocks can and do fail.
This is why MagPul Company and others are designing newer collapsing stock designs that are now being field tested.
Hopefully an adequate and durable collapsing stock design will come out of the field test and this stock may then be applied to all M16 weapon systems being issued.

[Don't Tread On Me]

Doesn't the A4 have M4 feedramps?

[Zach S]

Because the issue bayonet will not fit on a 16" barrel unless you move the gas block/front sight assembly 1 1/2" forward and that will affect reliability even worse than the short barrel guns are now experiencing.
So, basicly a 16" M4 with a mid-length gas system is going to be less reliable?

[texlurch]

So, basicly a 16" M4 with a mid-length gas system is going to be less reliable?

My understanding is that the whole reason for the mid-length is to help cure some of the shorty gas problems, plus give you a little longer sight radius.

[Oohrah]

Hey Badger, They trust them... only Marines for the most, pretty
much are not taught to rely on spray and pray. Don't be surprised
if the future caliber adapted will be a 28 caliber, and handguns go to
40 or original 45. Bullet energy is swinging back to meaningful
distance results.:)

[chieftain]

Several points on the issues brought up in this thread.

When listing the AR/M16 type rifles issued, folks forget the E1 models we were issued in Vietnam when we turned in our M14's.

As to the Corps still pushing accuracy vs full auto. In Fallujah they began an investigation because they thought the Marines were executing Ragheads because of all the head shots.

They figured out that with the new optics, that todays Leathernecks are blessed with, they were just able to shoot that much better. I agree.....GET SOME!

Repeatedly in the last 40 years I have heard various folks insist that the Corps was wasting time and money with the very heavy emphasis on marksmanship. I don't. When all else fails it sure helps when most of the folks in your unit can hit what they aim at........UNDERFIRE.

Darn, that means the Marines still don't trust their grunts with a full-auto M-16.

Nope, it means the Corps understands that folks on full Auto in combat will hit anything. I have never fired a rifle with burst capability on a range or in combat, but I can tell you that when you go to final protective fire, that ole' trigger finger gets pretty automatic even on a semi auto weapon.

except for guns, I believe full auto is a waste of perfectly good ammo. But it sure is fun. Something like the M4, cool but not as effective or reliable.

Go figure.

Fred

[Onmilo]

I have never said an 18" barrel with a mid length gas system is going to be less reliable.
I said moving the gas system 1 1/2 " forward on a 16" barrel AR is going to be less reliable.

I think the 18" mid length was incorporated after folks tried building 16" barrel rifles with full length gas systems and found out that this doesn't work well at all.
I really can't bring anything to the table about 18" barrel systems because I have not worked with them.

Close quarter battle and machine guns are two things I can think of that form a place for full automatic fire capability.
A Marine squad generally incorporates two SAW gunners and two grenadiers in the mix and Marine squads are taught to keep these weapons in the fight even if the designated gunner goes down.
Shotguns form a solid basis in Marine CQB teams too.
Lots of firepower there even if the weapons are not all full auto and the SAW gunners and shotgunners get a lot of CQB time.

[Zach S]

I have never said an 18" barrel with a mid length gas system is going to be less reliable.
I said moving the gas system 1 1/2 " forward on a 16" barrel AR is going to be less reliable.
I never said anything about an 18" bbl.

I dont see how moving the 1.5" forward is going to be less reliable, since most think that the middys are more reliable, and the gas system for it is just a CAR that's been moved 2 inches forward.

[full metal]

Stoping power more reliability more accuracy.give our boys overseases a real rifle the old m-14 in 308 better then the m-16 22's get rid of those damn 9mm pistol's give them back those good all 1911's in 45 who cares about high cap when they dont go down right away or stay down,the same goes for the m-16 just my opinion.

[chieftain]

Close quarter battle and machine guns are two things I can think of that form a place for full automatic fire capability.
A Marine squad generally incorporates two SAW gunners and two grenadiers in the mix and Marine squads are taught to keep these weapons in the fight even if the designated gunner goes down.
Shotguns form a solid basis in Marine CQB teams too.
Lots of firepower there even if the weapons are not all full auto and the SAW gunners and shotgunners get a lot of CQB time.

According to T/O the Marine rifle squad has 13 men.

Squad leader and 3 fireteams.

Each fire team has a SAW. There are 3 SAW's in each squad, and 3 grenadiers. Again one in each fireteam.

You are right about keeping the SAW's in action.

But I stand by my statement, that I see no need for full auto on the rifles. Again, I never did fight with a burst type weapon. I fought mainly with the M14, with a selector that I rarely placed on full Auto. Later near the end of my second tour with the 3rd Marine Division I was "forced" to finally turn in my M14 and get an M16. It was an E1 model. Replaced the buffer and spring with one from an Army A1 model that I liberated for parts.

Inside 100/150 yards the "stopping" power of the 5.56 NATO 55gr was actually pretty good. As long as the gook was in the open. At least as good as the 7.62 NATO. With any decent cover or range, the 7.62 was what got the job done.

As to house to house. I only did that for about 2-3 weeks in Hue. We didn't have the uber cool conga line tactics. We just threw in a few M26A1 fragmentation grenades and charged in willy nilly shooting everything to pieces. The tactics are vastly superior today.

In my day usually the squad leader would be humping the shotgun if we had one.

Go figure.

Fred

[Doggieman]

the question is: why 3 times the failure rate in the M4?

.223 is better than .30 for one thing and one thing alone: shoulder-fired full-auto.

[jeff-10]

Would be interesting if the M4 ended up taking over the M1 Carbine job...a short and lightweight carbine for REMFs, cannon cockers, and mortar luggers.

When I was in, 1993-1996, the M-4 was just starting to be used by line units towards the end of my commitment. At that time the mortars, spotters, AGs and drivers in the infantry all used the M-4s. All rifleman used the M16A2. I didn't realize that it had changed until after we invaded Afganistan. I started to see all these soldiers with M-4s and I could hardly believe it.

Someone asked why is one more reliable than the other. Probably a combination of the gas system and that one fires a 3 round burst and the other is full auto.

[HorseSoldier]

M4 is equipped with the burst setting, M4A1 with full auto. Originally, M4A1 was for SOF units only. No idea on the current basis of issue for the Big Army.

.223 is better than .30 for one thing and one thing alone: shoulder-fired full-auto.

And for double the basic load of ammo. And for 150% of the rounds in the gun. And for significantly reduced recoil, making the 5.56mm weapon much faster in multiple engagements of the same or assorted targets, etc.

We don't even train to do much, if any, full automatic fire any more. 5.56mm is just dramatically superior to .308 for general infantry service on semi auto. There is (some) discussion of upping caliber towards the .260-280 range (and strictly intermediate in power), but no one who is in any way accountable for what the troops go downrange with is pushing .308 . . . probably something to do with the fact that it was obsolete when the first M14s were rolling off the assmbly line and, for general infantry use, it has not gotten less obsolete in the last 50 years.

[chieftain]

We don't even train to do much, if any, full automatic fire any more. 5.56mm is just dramatically superior to .308 for general infantry service on semi auto. There is (some) discussion of upping caliber towards the .260-280 range (and strictly intermediate in power), but no one who is in any way accountable for what the troops go downrange with is pushing .308 . . . probably something to do with the fact that it was obsolete when the first M14s were rolling off the assmbly line and, for general infantry use, it has not gotten less obsolete in the last 50 years.

Interesting.

The only folks that I ever met that considered the 7.62 NATO obsolete are those that haven't used it in battle. Those of us that have fought with both NATO loads, 5.56 and 7.62 most often prefer the 7.62. Not withstanding less rounds on board.

It isn't because the old 55gr bullet was that bad. It is just the 7.62 is better. I have yet to hear anything about the 62 gr "penetrator" being any better and in most cases worse than the 55gr.

Also with the 7.62 we didn't have to find a load that "worked" reliably in making the black hats go DRT.

Besides, your medium guns still use the 7.62.

Go figure.

Fred

[Doggieman]

Well I wouldn't say the .30 caliber round was ever "obsolete" any more than the .45 round was "obsolete" when they phased in 9mm.

I would have to agree that the .260 or thereabouts round is probably the best for infantry. The .22 is just not enough, the .30 is too much for the average grunt with average marksmanship (of lack thereof).

When I said "full auto" I should have said "the .22 round is best for HIGH-VOLUME fire." The military knows the average grunt can't hit the broadside of a barn, even when inside the barn, so they want the maximum amount of lead flying through the air.

Snipers, of course, who can hit things, sometimes on their first shot, use larger caliber weapons.

[Number 6]

The military knows the average grunt can't hit the broadside of a barn, even when inside the barn, so they want the maximum amount of lead flying through the air.

And you can back this statement up with some evidence, right?:rolleyes:

[Doggieman]

I welcome you to prove that statement wrong. :)

Here (re Project SALVO):

"The conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random — that is, accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.

"These conclusions suggested that infantry should be equipped with a fully-automatic rifle of some sort in order to increase the rate of fire. It was also clear, however, that such weapons dramatically increased ammunition use and in order for a rifleman to be able to carry enough ammunition for a firefight they would have to carry something much lighter."

Ezell, Edward Clinton (1983). Small Arms of the World. New York: Stackpole Books, 46-47.

[Doggieman]

In June, the ORO published Hitchman's report "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon." Hitchman found that the majority of combat rifle use did not exceed 300 yards, and that marksmanship was severely degraded by terrain and visibility at ranges beyond 100 yards. In fact, the chance of being struck by a rifle bullet was seen as being nearly as random as being struck by a fragment from a high explosive shell. The time and amount of target exposure had more bearing on whether a target was hit versus marksmanship skills. Given such, an infantry weapon designed to provide controllable "pattern-dispersion" within a 300 yd range might be preferable to a weapon that provides precise single shots at longer distances. Furthermore, at the shorter ranges, a smaller caliber weapon might give acceptable "wounding effects" and allow for controllable "salvo or volley automatic" fire. The key to effectiveness is control; an uncontrollable automatic weapon is seen to be no more advantageous than a semi-auto counterpart. Hitchman projected that a four round salvo with a predictable 20" spread might provide double the hit probability at 300 yards over a single shot fired from a M1 rifle. A lighter, smaller caliber cartridge would have the side benefit of allowing enough ammunition to be carried for an equivalent number of fired salvos to the individual cartridge capacity of the current rifle.

From: http://www.thegunzone.com/spiw.html

In other words: "These guys can't hit the broad side of a barn. Let's make sure they can sling a lot of lead so we get a higher probability of hits."

[Number 6]

Unicorns exist. See if you can disprove that statement.

A couple problems with your "data." First, your first reference is over twenty years old, and appears to be quite dated. As for your second reference, that is a battlefield study from WWII. Training, tactics, and equipment have all changed since then. Please cite something that has been produced within the last ten years, and then it might have some relevance.

Second, the first source you cite is an study that was done to increase hit probability. That does not translate into soldiers being poor marksman. What the study is pointing out is that in combat there are factors that are exogenous to the ability of the shooter that can prevent them from hitting their target. A moving target is going to be harder to hit, therefore more rounds are going to be expended to hit the target. That does not mean that the shooter is a poor marksman, but instead speaks to the limits of combat. Both the studies you cite point to environmental and tactical factors that reduce the ability of a soldier to hit their mark, that does not mean that the soldier is a poor shot. Might I ask, what are your criteria for being a good marksman, and can that be achieved in a modern combat setting?

[Nhsport]

A year + back a Guard from my state (ct) was due to go to Afganastan. There was a big stink made as they were originally to take their "old" 20" M16s and Family ,friends,media,government,amd congressmen all got in a big frenzy because someone thought they deserved the "new and improved m4 carbines"
To be honest I read no more about this issue than the headlines but I remember thinking at the time that in Afganastan they might be better suited with the 20" rifles. I do not know the particular mission this Guard unit was headed to but in the end they were issues the Carbine.
I do think the marines are thinking correctly in this decision.
Does anyone know the barrel profile of these new guns? I myself have one upper built with an old 20" pencil 1/12 barrel and although it is long it really has fine ballance and isn't much slower or heavier than some of my carbines with the heavier barrels.
I don't claim any combat experience (I am a chairbourn ranger) and have never had to try and climb in or out of a vehicle with bad guys shooting at me.
Looking at these fine men and women serveing "over there" I can't help but wonder if some of this equipment that they are dragging around on a daily basis is handicapping them as much as it helps them?

[uk roe hunter]

In the UK we used to fave the slr (fnfal) without full auto. In 7.62 nato. It was great. Tough reliable and accurate.

I remember speaking to one of my Sgts about rifles. He was from a unit called 148 battery. In the falklands war they did some attacks up mount tumbledown with the guards. They were issued with m16 rifles as a special unit. He said they were a cracking piece of kit but he had to put a number of rounds into the Argentinians to put them down. he put it down and picked up an argentinian rifle knowing that when that .30 cal bullet hits, you stay down.

When we had our trusty slrs replaced rumours abounded that we would be getting the by then excellant M16, becuase of reliability problems with our SA80. but no it didn't happen. Politics rules and we got the SA80. When i served in beltast which was all urban patrol work i would have loved my old rifle back.

so really your M16 is pretty good comparitively speaking.

uk

[HorseSoldier]

A couple problems with your "data." First, your first reference is over twenty years old, and appears to be quite dated. As for your second reference, that is a battlefield study from WWII. Training, tactics, and equipment have all changed since then. Please cite something that has been produced within the last ten years, and then it might have some relevance.

Battlefield studies conducted concerning OIF and OEF within the last 12 months or so have found that the basic conclusion is (basically) correct -- the majority of individual engagements are occurring within 100 meters, and pretty much all are within 300 meters. Same song as in WW2 (and the later stages of WW1), and for the same reasons -- battlefield reality and human physiology/psychology combine to drastically reduce accuracy from what can be achieved when laying on freshly mowed grass in a good supported prone under full daylight illumination shooting at paper bullseyes that neither shoot back nor dive for cover erratically.

Well I wouldn't say the .30 caliber round was ever "obsolete" any more than the .45 round was "obsolete" when they phased in 9mm.


I'd actually say .308 was obsolete as an infantry rifle cartridge the day the War Department decided they wanted the M1 Garand chambered in .276 Pedersen (whose overall ballistics look curiously similar to 6.8mm Remington SPC). Which would make it obsolete about 20 years before it was introduced -- an obsolescence reinforced by the findings of every other major, and some minor, militaries the world over as evidence by the German desire for a 7mm intermediate round in the 1930s (logistical issues morphed that into the less effective 7.92x33 Kurz), the 1920s era Soviet proposals for a .25 caliber intermediate service rifle round and the later adoption of the (again less effective) 7.62x39, the British development of .280 and .280/30 after WW2, etc.

[Doggieman]

Might I ask, what are your criteria for being a good marksman, and can that be achieved in a modern combat setting?


You seem to be taking personal offense to my statement that "the average grunt can't hit the broadside of a barn, even when he's in the barn." That was hyperbole, and I actually believe that a grunt MAY be able to hit the broadside of a barn, EVEN when OUTSIDE the barn. Once he's off the farm, though, all bets are off. :evil:

The statement still is, though:

"The grunts can't reliably hit what they're aiming at, so let's let them throw as much lead in as little time as possible at it and that will increase their chances."

Feel free to show that that statement is false. If there're any data out there showing anything else, it should be very easy for you to discredit that argument. All you need is one bit of information saying:

1) grunts are very accurate
2) 5.56 was not designed to throw more lead at the target than 7.62.
3) snipers have better kill stats when they use 5.56
4) grunts need fewer shots to down an enemy with 5.56

etc.

anything. Shouldn't be hard.

[wacki]

Remember what Clinton did to all those M14s rather than alter them and sell them to us!

No. what did he do? burn them?

[Jeremy2171]

I didn't seem to have any problem stopping people with one shot while I was in Mogadishu. Single hits center mass at ~200m or less worked fine.

[AZgunstudent]

Just an opinion, but I'm serving in Afghanistan right now with the AZ Army Guard. We replaced the aforementioned CT Guard unit (which also happens to be my old unit when I lived in CT - small world). I have talked to dozens of the outgoing CT guys. None complained about 5.56 "stopping power," and they had ample opportunity to use their weapons. Nor did I hear anyone complain about M4 reliability. They're infantry guys and keep their weapons clean, versus some support guys with filthy weapons.

They M4 is much handier when doing mounted patrolling, which is what many of the missions are here. The 20" rifles tend to hang up in vehicles a lot. Just for that reason, a lot of the guys prefer the M4. Also, if you have to go kick in doors in the compounds in which a lot of Afghans live, the short M4 is way better than a 20" rifle.

The M4 also has the collapsible/adjustable stock, which makes shooting in the IBA far easier than with the fixed stock of the A2 or A4. When shooting with the IBA on, I collapse the stock completely. At 5'8", I find the ridiculously long A2 stock virtually useless when wearing armor. You should see the average female soldier try to shoulder one when wearing armor. Even one of the biggest guys here, "Moose," only has the stock halfway extended on his M4, and he also doesn't like the A2 stock.

Agreed that the 20" barrel gives a little more range, but most guys aren't snipers or even Designated Marksmen and realistically aren't going to be making hits on Taliban at 300+ meters in a firefight where everyone is moving. This is why we have crew-served weapons and can get on the radio and call for fire.

Weight of the basic load of ammo means a lot. It's easy to say soldiers should be tough enough to carry a whole bunch of 7.62 when dismounted, but most people haven't walked very far carrying 40 pounds of IBA, helmet, several liters of water, a couple hundred rounds of ammo, frag grenades, first aid supplies, and commo gear. Try it and see if you still want an M14 or other legacy rifle.

Objectively, the M16/M4 family isn't as reliable as some other weapons systems. Maybe the Marines do find the 20" rifle more reliable, or maybe they like the romance of the long barrel and the 500m shooting they do in their rifle quals. Maybe a good compromise for the OEF theater would be a 20" rifle with rails, a rugged 1-4X variable optical sight, and a collapsible stock. It would still be somewhat unhandy in vehicles, but better than the comparatively huge M16A4.

[buzz_knox]

No. what did he do? burn them?

Sent them to the crusher, along with large numbers of 1911s and M1s in storage.

And to add injury to insult, Janet Reno ordered the destruction of the Colt Government Models in .38 Super originally used by the FBI.

[Onmilo]

An M16A4 is comparatively huge!?
Wow,,,,
Have you been hanging around the Brits??

You might actually get the chance to meet a Marine over in the sandbox.
Ask to check out his rifle if he will let you.

You will find the longer barrel rifle balances better and feels lighter than the M4, especially when one goes hanging all the electronic stuff off the handguards that seems so popular a trend now.

Long rifles hang up no more frequently than short rifles when exiting a vehicle, though soldiers do appear to deploy the short barrel rifles more quickly once their feet are on the ground.

With modern optics and designators combat hit probability has increased substantially since the days of the good old M1.

Ammunition usage has not decreased because all good soldiers know flying bullets keep peoples heads down and this is such a wonderful thing, especially when moving forward.

[buzz_knox]

Long rifles hang up no more frequently than short rifles when exiting a vehicle, though soldiers do appear to deploy the short barrel rifles more quickly once their feet are on the ground.

A lot of the fighting currently is in close quarters. The long rifle stock of the 16A2/4 (which was designed for precision shooting by the marksmanship team and was adopted over the objections of those who used the rifles in combat) makes it more difficult to use in those situations. That's why you see Marines with A2/4s hanging the stock on top of the shoulder when doing entries. This situation is aggravated by the use of body armor and other gear.

[Onmilo]

Oh I totally agree that a shorter stock makes better sense for close quarter battle with the current ballistic protection equipment being fielded.

I was going to add in my previous post that I consider the area where the M4 really shines is in fact close quarter battle scenarios but decided against it.

With the coming of more and more effective and deadly armaments and the need to dress soldiers like knights of old we may very well end up with a much shorter fixed stock as standard issue in combat environments.

[HorseSoldier]

An M16A4 is comparatively huge!?
Wow,,,,
Have you been hanging around the Brits??

Sit in your car and try manuevering a 20" barrel, fixed stock AR around (I'd roll the windows down first :) ), or try running through your house at speed with the same rifle at the low ready occasionally bringing it up to "fire" and you'll see what he means.

He's completely correct, especially, as he noted, with body armor on.

[halvey]

I have talked to dozens of the outgoing CT guys. None complained about 5.56 "stopping power," and they had ample opportunity to use their weapons. Nor did I hear anyone complain about M4 reliability. And to add to that, talked to a Special Forces guy last year. He's been in the Army for 17 years and SF for I think close to 15. Anyway, they went into Afghanistan right after 9/11 and were operating there for quite awhile. He showed me pics of them training with the 9mm Beretta's so I asked what he thought of the gun and the round. He said they haven't had any problems with it and its a good gun.

Maybe us civilians get more worked up over the stuff than the guys doing the fighting.

[AZgunstudent]

An M16A4 is comparatively huge!?
Wow,,,,
Have you been hanging around the Brits??

Nope, but I've talked to lots of other coalition people: French, Germans, New Zealanders, Koreans, etc. Compared to the M4, especially with the stock collapsed, the A2/A4 is very big and clunky.

You might actually get the chance to meet a Marine over in the sandbox.
Ask to check out his rifle if he will let you.

Be still my heart! You mean a lowly Nasty Girl like me might actually get a chance to meet a real-live, fire-breathing Marine? And he might even let me touch his sacred rifle? Geez, I just might faint if that happened!

You will find the longer barrel rifle balances better and feels lighter than the M4, especially when one goes hanging all the electronic stuff off the handguards that seems so popular a trend now.

I'm not sure how you know what a given rifle feels like in another man's hands. I am very familar with the longer variants of the M16. My issue weapon in basic training was an A2, and my first rifle qual (expert) with a Guard unit was with an M16A1. I've been doing this for a while. I have also owned several AR-pattern rifles and shot them fairly extensively at both long range and up close.

I do not find that the A2/A4 "balances better," though it may in your hands. I find it front-heavy and clunky compared to the M4, especially with that "electronic stuff" like the M68/PEQ-2/Surefire mounted. That stuff isn't so much a "trend" as mission-essential equipment.

I certainly do not find 4" of extra steel and handguard, along with a bigger stock, to "feel lighter" than my M4.

Long rifles hang up no more frequently than short rifles when exiting a vehicle,

That's a pretty authoritative statement. Not sure what your experience is. In a GAC (Ground Assault Convoy), I'm in full battle rattle, poured into an uparmored HMMWV surrounded by a couple of radios, BFT, ammo cans, ruck sacks, water, MREs, and BII. Space is at a premium. The M4 is simply smaller and therefore handier in a vehicle. Having handled both an A2 and an M4 in a HMMWV, I personally find the M4 easier to use. Your mileage may vary, assuming you've put in some miles in a HMMWV.

Re-reading the original article that started this thread, I see that even the Marines who field-tested the M4 preferred it to the A4. Their command just overrode their opinions.

[Blakenzy]

So those accesory rails that you see on every tacticool rifle nowadays was actually introduced in 1913? Where has it been all this time? Hibernating :confused:

['Card]

Darn, that means the Marines still don't trust their grunts with a full-auto M-16.
I was with the 82nd when they phased out the A1 (full-auto) and introduced the A2 (burst). We loved it. The overwhelming opinion at the time (and still my opinion today) was that "Full auto is for people that can't aim."

[Tigerclaw_x]

Isn't the army getting an HK G36 rifle to replace M16s due to later's high maintenance? To me it seems the issue of cost. USMC is a bastard child of US navy, they never have enough money, so they are getting the Cheap-o design which is 50 years old, while the Army, not lacking the money getting a state of the art HK weapon. Fine german engineering, and, might I add, a gas piston operating system - yet another improvement on SVT rifle. It makes me so pissed off, that my countrymen never developed an SVT to a full potential, letting others copy it into an FN/FAL, AR-180B, SIG556, etc etc etc. And now even G36: short stroke gas piston, rotating locking bolt.
Germans copied SVT 40 back in 1943, and they are still copying it now. Makes me both proud of Russian engineering and sad that we chose the wrong path. Ideal rifle: SVT-40 system chambered for 6.5x55 or 6.8SPC

[buzz_knox]

Isn't the army getting an HK G36 rifle to replace M16s due to later's high maintenance?

No. The XM8 program died quite some time ago. The military found that it didn't offer any real advantages over the current "high maintenance" M16 platform.

[HorseSoldier]

Fine german engineering, and, might I add, a gas piston operating system

XM8 melted during sustained fire testing. :scrutiny:

Ideal rifle: SVT-40 system chambered for 6.5x55 or 6.8SPC

If somebody starts making SVT's chambered for 6.5x55, I'm in line to buy several of them.

[Number 6]

You seem to be taking personal offense to my statement that "the average grunt can't hit the broadside of a barn, even when he's in the barn." That was hyperbole, and I actually believe that a grunt MAY be able to hit the broadside of a barn, EVEN when OUTSIDE the barn. Once he's off the farm, though, all bets are off.

The statement still is, though:

"The grunts can't reliably hit what they're aiming at, so let's let them throw as much lead in as little time as possible at it and that will increase their chances."

Feel free to show that that statement is false. If there're any data out there showing anything else, it should be very easy for you to discredit that argument. All you need is one bit of information saying:

1) grunts are very accurate
2) 5.56 was not designed to throw more lead at the target than 7.62.
3) snipers have better kill stats when they use 5.56
4) grunts need fewer shots to down an enemy with 5.56

etc.

anything. Shouldn't be hard.

First, I do not take such statements personally. When I see someone make a logically suspect statement without evidence, I generally am going to call them on it.

Second, challenging me to disprove your statement I believe to be a problematic form of argumentation. I can make almost any preposterous claim and challenge someone to disprove it. The problem is that disproving a statement is false tends to be more difficult to prove the statement is true. Hence my challenge to you to prove that unicorns do not exist.

Third, despite your statement being hyperbolic, the onus of the statement I believe to be incorrectly put upon the soldier. What you are referring to is battlefield conditions that make it difficult to hit a target. Soldiers can train to mitigate the conditions, and since WWII there has been a change in training. Compared to insurgents or Iraqi Army soldiers the reports I have seen have indicated that the US soldiers are much better shots. That does not mean that US soldiers are not going to miss their target. Misses will happen, its a reality of trying to hit a moving target, or a target that is trying to not to be shot. My reading of your statement is that you place the problem with the soldier, and I disagree with that line of reasoning. I tend to think that conditions exogenous to the soldier are what affects their ability to hit their target.

I agree with you that having a rifle that allows more bullets to be put downrange is a good idea, but I believe that to be incomplete. Just throwing bullets downrange is not a good idea, having a gun and cartridge that allows for faster follow shots, and therefore more bullets downrange is a better idea. Having soldiers that can do both achieve a decent level of marksmanship, and have a rifle that allows them faster follow up shots seems to be a more complete statement.

As for evidence. I only have anecdotal evidence, and realize that making broad generalizations from this evidence is difficult, but I have encountered enough soldiers and have read enough battlefield accounts to know that the post I cite below is not a unique occurrence. Here is a post from ar15.com from a soldier that fought in Iraq

When I was in OIF 1, one of my jobs was hiring Iraqi interpreters for my Battalion. After spending a few days with one Iraqi, he started relaxing and talking to me more. He asked me "Why did you americans cheat when you fought the Iraqi army?"

I looked at him with what I was sure was a puzzled expression and I asked "What do you mean why do we cheat?"

He said, "I watched as Iraqi soldiers fired 30, 40, 50 shots to try to hit an American soldier and most of the time they never did. You americans fire 2, 3 or 4 shots and hit the Iraqi soldiers almost every time. You also have all of those things on your guns that help you shoot better. Iraqi army don't have that stuff."

I just laughed....To make a long story short, I explained to him about the the Army's marksmanship training program. I explained to him the concept behind the use of optics on weapons and told him that he could buy almost anything that we had on our rifles at the time (Eotechs, Aimpoints, Acogs). I explained to him how Saddam kept all of Iraq's money for himself when he could have bought the same/similar equipment for his soldiers. I emphasized that even if American soldiers only had iron sights, that the Iraqi army would still have had their asses handed to them because the M16/M4 series of weapons are more capable than the AK family and American soldiers are trained much better.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=320918&page=2

[shaggycat]

Second, challenging me to disprove your statement I believe to be a problematic form of argumentation. I can make almost any preposterous claim and challenge someone to disprove it. The problem is that disproving a statement is false tends to be more difficult to prove the statement is true. Hence my challenge to you to prove that unicorns do not exist.

The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

;)

[chieftain]

The military knows the average grunt can't hit the broadside of a barn, even when inside the barn, so they want the maximum amount of lead flying through the air.

I don't believe the MILITARY believes or knows that. Maybe the Army knows that, but not the Corps.

In Fallujah, they wanted an investigation (go figure) because they thought the Corps was executing ragheads because of all the headshots. Upon completion of that investigation, they discovered that Marine grunts were making one shot kills thanks to their optics.

Now I don't know the unit you served in, but based on my own combat experience that is good shooting. Frankly can't do much better. I do assume most of those were at 100yards or less. But I figure, a single head shot on a bad guy is as good as I can expect from my troops. YMMV

Now this may be news to you, longer barrels tend to give one more accuracy and lethality down range, as compared to the shorter barrels of the same weapons. Oh yea, more reliability is a good thing too. At least in the war I was involved with.

In Afghanistan an American reporter stated that he could tell who was shooting by the number of rounds fired. Ragheads would rip a whole magazine, snuffy would fire only a couple rounds.

I know, sort of blows your whole thesis. Facts have a habit of doing that.

Weight of the basic load of ammo means a lot. It's easy to say soldiers should be tough enough to carry a whole bunch of 7.62 when dismounted, but most people haven't walked very far carrying 40 pounds of IBA, helmet, several liters of water, a couple hundred rounds of ammo, frag grenades, first aid supplies, and commo gear. Try it and see if you still want an M14 or other legacy rifle.

I don't know the distance of an average patrol in either of the sandboxes, but I can promise you in my two tours with the 3rd Mar Div in Vietnam I did a hump or two. Trust me.

My belt, Flak jacket and Helmet (the ole' piss pot) weight was at 76lbs. That included 9 of my M14's magazines that were on the belt. Then we put on our radios, a little heavier than today's models, particularly the PRC 41 (UHF) vs the PRC 25. Packs, ammo, belt for the gun, bandoleer for the blooper, etc.... If you had mortar's attached we carried some of them too.

Our battle loads could easily get to 125+ pounds depending on the mission and type of supporting arms attached. And still folks wanted their M14's. I did. For us it was, "IF it would keep your alive, take it."

Let me tell you my friend, everyone was trying to buy, trade, or steal my M14 after we switched to 22's. Why? Fewer rounds in a reliable rifle is better than more in one that is not. I could shoot through a lot of cover. The M16's could not.

I started rifle shooting competitively in the middle 50's in the NRA's junior programs with the 22. The Marine Corps taught me how to shoot out to 600yds with Iron sights on my M14 and M1 Garand (carried that in ITR). It is easy to hit a guy out at 300 + yards. Part of it was a different era. Many of the troops, like myself, were shooters before we go to the Corps.

Maybe you can't do it. But the better shots, not snipers expert riflemen grunts in my day, with M1 Garands and M14's could hit with reasonable reliability at range. AS AT&T used to say. When we needed to we could "reach out and touch someone."

The M14 had a big advantage over the Matty Mattel. It tended to keep ole' snuffy alive. I never had to bag and tag a Marine because his M14 failed. I have bagged and tagged several who's M16's did.

I only used my selector a few times, and not very effectively. Semi auto is just fine. Besides if you're in a position that has to go to final protective fire, semi Auto is damn near automatic, and a lot more accurate. One other advantage, when you get over run, or you over run the enemy, the M14 makes a much better baseball bat.

Go figure.

Fred