M16 in Afghanistan

[RhinoDefense]

Different tools for different jobs; for the weight necessary to make a .223 hit effectively out to 600+ meters it would be easier to consider a .308.

Then ammunition weight comes into play.

The biggest issues plaguing the military in this role are the training of DMs and the supply chain of M14 support. M14 aren't any better in the sandbox than an M16 variant.

I've talked with a few DMs locally that said when they were at base, they had the M14. When they were on patrol, they ran MK12s. Main reason was weight. Their opinion was any perceived increase in terminal ballistics was outmatched with the extra weight over the MK and 5.56.

The 7.62 is nice at base when the enemy would camp out at 700m thinking they were safe. The Barrett's and 7.62s would show them different. But on foot, the 5.56 MK12 got the nod.

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't have a problem using 5.56 out to 1000 as long as I can use as many as I want. (Preferably through a SAW.)

 

[Sambo82]

I'll but in my .02$

The Marine Corps rifle range uses the A2 variant, with iron sights, against a "B Mod" target (that resembles a human silhouette from the torso up) at 500 yards in the prone. Multiple hits for good shooters is NOT a problem in the least. I averaged, as did many good shooters, 80-90% hits on target. Again no scope, no acog or red dot magnifier. Just irons. This is not hearsay nor speculation. It's a common, everyday occurance and every Marine will tell you the same. So yes indeed the 5.56 is accurate at 500 yards.


I also know that if you get a hole in you, that you weren't born with, you're probably going to die. Go to youtube and watch all the videos & news reports of crooks who were killed by sweet old ladies with .22's.

 

[tarosean]

the grit/sand/bull dust in the area effects accuracy or effective range by erroding barrels, or ruining optics, etc?

Im not in the military, but spend a lot of time in the ME. I dont see fines eroding barrels, but anything made of glass/plastic/paint it slowly destroys.

 

[MEHavey]

You're saying exactly what those of us that have done know, and those on the internet that have not done will never believe.

1969-1970 (1st gen) Where range was not a primary consideration
2006-2012 (2nd gen) Where range is...

And at this point I will bow out of this conversation.

 

[boricua9mm]

The M14 as discussed in this thread is far too generalized to represent any basis for an argument either for or against it. There's standard rack-grade M14s (which have been scoped -and sometimes not) and pressed into service for the DMR role. There's the rifles such as the Marine Corps' M14 DMR which has many of the accuracy enhancements one would find in a National Match rifle. There's the SAGE EBR, which while providing better accuracy without NM mods, comes at a heavy weight penalty and requires specialized (and difficult to replace) tools for takedown and maintenance.

Safe to say that the AR system and its ammo are matured at this point. Contemporary ammo makes it much more effective on fleshy targets at the ranges being discussed. However, to throw the M14 under the bus using generalizations is a bit disingenuous. It is a rifle that, despite its short service as the primary arm, has flexed its muscle in the past 10 years and proven its worth and even incorporated a bit of modularity needed by modern users. When you put all of that together, it ain't half bad for a rifle whose time has allegedly already come and gone.

 

[Zerodefect]

Why use a M4 5.56 when you have better options for the mountains? Big caliber machine guns and the .308 M14 things and LMT MWS .308 seem to be popular.




Brits (I think):


.556 is fine in the jungles and urban areas. Closer ranges. But you'll need something bigger at 700yards+

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Keep in mind that if you're a 7.62 SDM, you can break a few rounds off your M240B gunner's links. Not match rounds of course, or the rounds you're zeroed for, but it's something that will shoot. Granted not all squads carry 240s, but if you do, it's someone else to go to for ammo so you don't have a club.

 

[Nico Testosteros]

Zerodefect, I believe the top pic is US as the camp looks like standard Multicam. The 2nd pic looks like British personnel due to the helmet type. The recently adopted Brit MTP Camo is derived from Multicam with a few elements changed to resemble the DPM Camo we used for years.

 

[C-grunt]

Ive been to Iraq twice. First time as a SAW gunner and second time as a DM using a modified M16.

I've never experienced a problem with the lack of lethality of the 5.56 round at range. I do believe the 7.62 does do more damage at long range but you still need to get good hits. From my experience shot placement at range is even more important as the rounds tend to just poke holes. A 5.56 through the heart at 500 yards is just as effective as a 7.62 and a 7.62 through the arm at 500 yards is just as ineffective as a 5.56.

Also from my experience the smallest gun that I have seen truly effectively stop a speed vehicle was the Bradley's 25mm chain gun. The .50 messes it up pretty good but doesn't really stop the cars.

 

[Jim Watson]

I continue to wonder why, if the 5.56 is so bad, then why did our enemies go smallbore, too, after watching the M16 in action? Consider the 5.45 Sov and 5.8 Chicom. Of course they, like we, have larger caliber rifles and MGs for use where needed. They just don't hash it out on the internet all the time.

 

[Beentown]

I continue to wonder why, if the 5.56 is so bad, then why did our enemies go smallbore, too, after watching the M16 in action? Consider the 5.45 Sov and 5.8 Chicom. Of course they, like we, have larger caliber rifles and MGs for use where needed. They just don't hash it out on the internet all the time.

Yep. I don't get why these discussions always come up. The 5.56 is proven. Larger caliber has its place and that is limited to a small portion of our arms. 700 yards and you can't use covering/movement to get the job done...call it in. We are quite effective with our current tactics/equipment.

 

[ms6852]

I strongly disagree. The military DM's are making one shot kills beyond 500m with the MK262 ammunition. Your opinion of "little effectiveness on people" is countered with piles of our enemy's bodies.

Ditto

 

[SwissArmyDad]

Beentown - Yep. I don't get why these discussions always come up. The 5.56 is proven. Larger caliber has its place and that is limited to a small portion of our arms. 700 yards and you can't use covering/movement to get the job done...call it in. We are quite effective with our current tactics/equipment.

It's a side effect of any discussion concerning the 5.56 round. My original intent was to solicit responses similar to the ones that c-grunt, sambo and others have posted listing their experiences shooting longer ranges both in training and in-country, as well as their experiences when SDM are being issued MK18's, M14's and the like to help them do their job.

Having several family members over there has definitely focused my interest on what they're being given to get their job done...

 

[mortablunt]

I continue to wonder why, if the 5.56 is so bad, then why did our enemies go smallbore, too, after watching the M16 in action? Consider the 5.45 Sov and 5.8 Chicom. Of course they, like we, have larger caliber rifles and MGs for use where needed. They just don't hash it out on the internet all the time.

The Soviet leadership got wind of our small rounds and thought that we were onto something good that they were missing. Mikhail Kalashnikov resisted the changes and IIRC, certain units still use the 7.62x39 AK's because they think that it is more effective at stopping people.

 

[Zerodefect]

Nothing issued in the militarymakes any sense until you see the big picture.

It allways seems like a ship needs more guns, missles etc. But when you notice the other ships and aircraft, it starts to make sense.

 

[Driftertank]

I think one of the biggest driving factors behind widespread adoption of "minor caliber" weapons is logistics: smaller rounds are cheaper to produce, easier to transport, and easier to use for a wider range of body types and skill levels. Since studies have shown, time and again, that typical combat ranges are less than 300m, using a round that "gets the job done" in the smallest, lightest package possible makes good economic sense if you're running an army. If you're a grunt, you take what you're given and learn to love it.

Unfortunately, "The Rockbox" presents too few "typical combat situations." Different tools are indicated, but with different tools comes the need for different training. Retraining and re-equipping the entire army to optimize them for fighting in one pile of rocks would be foolhardy and prohibitively expensive. So the current - and fairly effective - answer is to equip a portion of the current force with more optimal equipment and training to act as a force-multiplier. Hence the DMR's.

 

[SpeedAKL]

Several 5.56mm SDMs are in service right now. The Army uses the SDM-R, which is an accurized M16 with a match-grade barrel. From what I've seen in pictures most of them have ACOGs mounted on top, but I've seen a few with longer-range optics. The Marines use the very similar SAM-R, typically with a Leupold Mk.4 optic. The Navy SEALs introduced the Mk.12 SPR, which IIRC uses Leupold or Nightforce optics. The SPR has an 18-inch match barrel and intermediate-length gas system. The exact configuration varies by version (Mk.0, Mk.1, etc.). The SPR is apparently used by other SOF units as well as the Marines in limited numbers. Lastly, the SEALs have the "Recon Rifle", which is similar to the SPR but uses a 16-inch barrel. All of these weapons combine the 5.56x45 round, extended-range optics, and accurized components.

5.56x45 ballistics are not too shabby. Punch in the numbers on the JDM ballistics calculator and see for yourselves. The controversy is more centered around whether the cartridge has enough stopping power at the distances required for shots in Afghanistan. It definitely peters off past that point. The design of the current 62grn M855 bullet is a FMJ with steel core. This is ideal for penetrating hard surfaces (i.e. body armor or steel plates), but not ideal for wounding in soft tissue. It tends penetrate very well but leave a relatively narrow wounding channel. The bullet can fragment in soft tissue and cause tremendous damage, but this does not reliably occur below a certain velocity threshold that I can't recall. Many civilians and LEOs use soft-point designs like Hornady TAP for defensive ammunition because of this issue. These designs are prohibited by treaty, so they are a no-go for our forces. Some SOF units and DMs get Mk.262 ammo with 77grn Sierra Match King bullets. These improve the cartridge's reach noticeably.

There are several 7.62mm DM-type rifles out there. The Army has the M110 and the Navy/USMC has the Mk.11; both are based on the KAC SR-25. SOCOM units sometimes use the SCAR Mk.17 with heavy barrel fitted, and the SCAR-based Mk.20 SSR is on order as well. The M14s are being replaced by the SR-25-pattern guns, but I'm sure some are still floating around.

 

[JShirley]

This is a non-issue. You always use a crew-served, when it's an option. And if the enemy is over 400 meters away, it's an option.

In the two pics, a few posts above, in the first pic, the soldiers are wearing 25th ID patches, so, yeah, they're US.

I see lots of ACOGs over here now.

John

 

[Gunnerboy]

Shot placement may be everything but some people cant make a perfect shot everytime while recieving fire and being under stress, so that is why a larger round is better in my opinion, just like most elk hunters with there massive magnums they arnt neccassary but being most cant seem to hit a pie plate at 100yds the damage from the larger round can make up for the lack of skill on the shot placement.

 

[Welding Rod]

The most effective way to employ individual small arms is with well trained shooters.

When training hundreds of thouseands of shooters, the cost advantage of 5.56 over 7.62 can't be overlooked. Given an equal budget, the shooter can put about twice as much ammo down range in training with the smaller round.

I got out of the Army 18 years ago, but my experience then was that marksmanship, firearms training, and live training in general was pretty poor due mostly to an inadequate budget for ordnance and an OCD for not letting anyone get hurt in traiining. I am sure live fire training would have been cut further if every soldier was being trained with a 7.62 rifle.

 

[jeepnik]

Thank you for this perspective, and thank you for your and your son's service.

One question - I'm aware of what fine grit can do as far as actions/movin parts cycling, making oil and grease gummy/pasty, etc, but is there any evidence that the grit/sand/bull dust in the area effects accuracy or effective range by erroding barrels, or ruining optics, etc?

Or does the routine maintenence they perform make this a non-issue?

I don't know, I'll talk to the boys. But I do know that most of the stuff they got into in Iraq was relatively short range compared to what the eldest dealt with in Afghanistan, so some loss of accuracy might not have been noticable in Iraq

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

I carried a MK 18 SPR for my entire year long deployment in Afghanistan and never had an issue with it or the cartridge. The .556 NATO is a perfectly acceptable round to carry. However I think that we should go back to .308 as the issued cartridge but it will not happen. I think the military as whole should spend more time in training people to shoot better. Because from what I saw in the corps on the range is actually quite dissapointing.

 

[oldguy870]

I have the solution.

Let's pack our bags and go home. This 10+ year non-declared war is a money pit. The cost is $1M/year for each soldier. More importantly, there is nothing in Afghanistan worth the life of even one US serviceman.

Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.
Sun Tzu

 

[Grmlin]

I don't know some of the newer weapon platforms being mentioned here. This is an extremly long running debate since its started during the Vietnam era.
The 5.56 is a great round but that doesn't mean its the perfect round. I was extremly acurate with it especialy at 500+ yds. I come from a service family Dad Airforce end of Korea, Great Uncle Army Air Corps/Air Force retired mid 70's, Another G.U. Navy and so on and so on. A couple of brother inlaws Army during Vietnam, one in Germany the other spent his time in Vietnam and was very good at what he did and will seldom talk about it. He did not care for the M-16 but luckly that wasn't his primary. I carried an M-16 in the Gulf War and from time to time a shotgun. During the Iraq War I carried a 9mm and a lovely Benelie 12 gage semi auto. Deployments after that mainly just my side arm.
I hope this link works and ads more light to what your looking for. I still shoot 5.56/.223 as often as possible but for long rang I like something with more weight to it.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHSiODMsRBhoR0OKTHjf4CSDAPiIg