M16 in Afghanistan

[Cosmoline]

Armchair commandos love to talk about the 5.56 round being for varmints and no good for humans at range. real trigger pullers know better.

The physics are the physics. At extended range the 5.56 delivers a blow comparable to a .32 ACP and loses all of its "explosive" force on tissue. This isn't a question of braggadocio from armchiars, it's just reality. When you use a 5.56 you're trading off some power for less weight and recoil. That's just the way it is. Whether that tradeoff is worth it, I don't know. But it's certainly something to consider. To rigidly maintain that the 5.56 is "good enough" because soldiers use it really isn't an effective argument. Soldiers have to use it. The question is whether we should be buying them something better. That's our responsibility. And if they're undergunned it's our fault.

Personally I don't think that "something better" is the 7.62 NATO. That's a fine round for sniper rifles but as I'm discovering with the M1a, it's much more weight to tote per round. And our guys are already carrying loads equal to a Himalayan mountaineer. It also requires a heavier platform with a longer barrel or you start losing the advantages it gives you in the first place. It's fundamentally a battle rifle cartridge not an assault rifle round.

I think a better solution is in the 6.5-7mm range with an 18" or so barrel. There you find a "magic spot" in the ballistics which give you increased long and short range killing power without as much of a weight increase. And you can use the existing platforms as a base. But good luck coming up with the funding for millions of new uppers and a phasing out of the 5.56 after all these decades. It could have and probably should have been done right after 9/11, but it's a decade too late now. The budgets were blown looking in vain for some new do-all uber-high-tech OICW and similar efforts. Now that the axe is in full swing in DC the only way it could be done is some kind of independent voluntary funding mechanism. And it would likely be a cold day in a hot place before the DOD took hat in hand and begged the taxpayers directly for better rifles.

So, basically, I hope folks like the 5.56 ;-)

 

[Quiet]

US SOCOM seems to like the 7.62x51mm Mk 17 Mod 0 (SCAR-H).

 

[NG VI]

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

I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous statement. For the weight gain of 15 1/7000ths of a pound for each cartridge, it would be easier to replace the rifle with one several pounds heavier and ammunition several times heavier and much bulkier?

 

[ORHunter79]

Internet rumors are well, rumors. At 500 yards the 5.56 is very accurate, depending on the shooter. All Marines recognize that shooting at 500 yards or beyond requires a good wind call. All Marines are trained to make a wind call at 500 yards.

Will its do the job at that distance? Yes, it will! I've shot at those ranges multiple times. The bullet hits its mark every time if you make a good wind call.

Will it drop the enemy at those distances? Yes it will. Even if it's not an "instant" kill, it still puts a hole in the enemy.

Let me put it this way, would you like to be shot from 500 yards? Physiologically, you and your friends wouldn't know where the shot came from and morale would be low watching your fellow insurgents drop as you wouldn't know where the shooter is shooting from.

If an enemy combatant dies right away, he or she is down and no further action is required. But if an enemy insurgent is wounded, it requires 2 more combatants to take care of the wounded.

Either-way, one combatant is out of the picture or 3 combatants are out the picture.

So us the round effective at those distances, you bet it is.

 

[Onmilo]

If it really matters, not much actual combat shooting is done at 500 meters in Afghanistan & when it occurs, snipers and designated marksman rule the playing field.
The Taliban fighters won't stick around and fight even at that distance, they run.

Contact close to 100 meters is more like the real ranges gunfights usually take place and normally because one group crosses paths with another group inadvertantly.

The IED remains the primary killer in Af****istan.

People that continue to argue the 5.56 has no combat value are really living in a smoke clouded pipe dream.:banghead:

 

[praharin]

Speaking with current and former DMs that is not the case. The M14s are getting mothballed in favor of the MK12 and MK18. In the field, there are currently more DMs fielding the MK12 and MK18 than are fielding the M14. The M14 DMR was a hurried solution.

There is no way in heck that anyone is using the Mk18 in a long range roll unless it's all they've got.

The 10.5" barrel being the limiting factor

 

[SwissArmyDad]

Internet rumors are well, rumors. At 500 yards the 5.56 is very accurate, depending on the shooter. All Marines recognize that shooting at 500 yards or beyond requires a good wind call. All Marines are trained to make a wind call at 500 yards.

What sights(glass/iron/etc) are marines using to make hits @ 500 yards with 5.56 (A)in training? (B)in combat?

Are there different evolutions with different optics systems/stances?

Do you know what ammo is generally used? I've heard MK262, Mk318, M193 and M855 mentioned.

Also, Are they being trained to shoot dramatically uphill/downhill as someone else mentioned? I think another gentleman from florida, possibly Army, was saying they went to wyoming to train due to the lack of hilly area in fla. Is this true of marines as well?

Thanks for the post!

 

[praharin]

Marines are trained on the KD range to make hits at 500 yards from the prone with iron sights. It has almost zero connectivity to actually shooting an enemy at 500 yards, but they are trained for it. At that range, you'd be darn lucky to even make out a target, that's making any attempt to blend in, through the sights.

But, they are trained to do it.

4 MOA is all it takes for the system (ammo, rifle and shooter) to make predictable hits at 500 yards.

 

[smithman 10]

That's a mighty persuasive article you linked to.

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


Never having fired a round in combat I defer to those who have, but it seems like the optimum round might have been somewhere between 5.56 and 7.62.

Like several have said - too late now.

 

[RhinoDefense]

There is no way in heck that anyone is using the Mk18 in a long range roll unless it's all they've got.

Got my nomenclature mixed up. I meant to say the SDM-R of the Army. Thanks for catching that.

If an enemy combatant dies right away, he or she is down and no further action is required. But if an enemy insurgent is wounded, it requires 2 more combatants to take care of the wounded.

Either-way, one combatant is out of the picture or 3 combatants are out the picture.

The intention in the military is to kill the enemy. I have never been shown any documentation that the directive or purpose for any rifleman was to only wound the enemy in hopes that other enemies would come to their aid and only be wounded with them.

 

[praharin]

If an enemy combatant dies right away, he or she is down and no further action is required. But if an enemy insurgent is wounded, it requires 2 more combatants to take care of the wounded.

Either-way, one combatant is out of the picture or 3 combatants are out the picture.
The intention in the military is to kill the enemy. I have never been shown any documentation that the directive or purpose for any rifleman was to only wound the enemy in hopes that other enemies would come to their aid and only be wounded with them.

I'd agree with the sentiment regardless of the fact that it's not an actual tactic practiced officially by any organized military. It's probably even a war crime.

But...

The problem with the idea, however, is when fighting an unorganized enemy he's very unlikely to stick his neck out even for one of his comrades (and rightly so, IMO), and even more unlikely to even have medical gear, let alone the training necessary to use it.

 

[Boanerges57]

what sucks in a-stan is the long range engagements from mountain side to mountain side. The DMs and m240s can reach out with authority. the mk262 out of a 20" barrel with optics will do very well, the guys with a 14.5" m4 and a red dot CCO are gonna have some trouble.
While the m4 is awesome for getting into and out of vehicles and for room/building clearing, it is not an amazing short barrel long range tack driver.
that being said, with an ACOG shooting out to 650-ish meters is not much of an issue, never engaged beyond that with an ACOG.
The CCO is severely limited in such situations but shines <300m.
I do feel we should not have gotten rid of all the m16a4s we had.

btw a number of guard infantry and cavalry units have been fielding the m110 since 2009

 

[ORHunter79]

Got my nomenclature mixed up. I meant to say the SDM-R of the Army. Thanks for catching that.


The intention in the military is to kill the enemy. I have never been shown any documentation that the directive or purpose for any rifleman was to only wound the enemy in hopes that other enemies would come to their aid and only be wounded with them.

Right. I never said that wounding was the directive. The intention is to kill, but the the fact is instant death doesn't always happen. No one shoots to wound, it's just a by product of war.

I think taking an enemy combatant out of the fight might be a more accurate statement. Better yet, taking the fight out of the enemy is even better.

An recent example would be Iraq. They had two choices. Fight and die, or surrender and be treated humanely.

A lot of them faced with this opted for the second choice.

But that is a different discussion, my point was that the 5.56 is effective even at longer ranges. Max effective range is 550 meters on a point target and 800 meters on an area target.

 

[mortablunt]

The intention in the military is to kill the enemy. I have never been shown any documentation that the directive or purpose for any rifleman was to only wound the enemy in hopes that other enemies would come to their aid and only be wounded with them.

I don't think that was started by a military guy. It could've been a scientist, but I digress. Every military guy I talked to said that they were told to aim to drop the guy pronto and make him stop for good. As was summed up by my teacher: "He ain't dead, he's got a gun, and he's out to get you."

 

[RhinoDefense]

I disagree with your maximum effective range on point targets. Torso and headshots are being made at longer distances than 550m with the 5.56.

 

[X-Rap]

The naysayers will never give up, if they concede to the accuracy potential then they say it is incapable of taking the target out of the fight at extended ranges when all that really needs to be done is to go out and shoot at said distance and see for yourself. Milk jugs, melons, prairie dogs the results will all be the same and that is irrefutable.
Props to those who are using it in the field today and your service and opinions are much appreciated.

 

[Cosmoline]

Who is saying the 5.56 is "incapable" of taking targets out of the fight at extended ranges? This is about math and physics. A hit from a 5.56 at 600 yards can indeed kill or incapacitate a man. But the bullet packs little punch and will not show any explosive effect. So the chances of killing or incapacitating are lower than they would be with a larger bullet holding more energy. Nobody disputes this. It isn't subject to dispute. The only question is whether the tradeoffs of upgrading are worth it. And the consensus is that they are not, at least not for most soldiers. The expenses would be too great and the weight increase too hard on already overloaded spines.

But if we do ever get around to revamping the ancient arsenal of small arms, the 5.56 should probably be changed to a 6.5 to 7mm caliber round. The favorable ballistics of bullets in this caliber range have been known for many generations.

 

[RhinoDefense]

My the world would be different if we had gone .276 Pederson for the Garand.

 

[praharin]

I disagree with your maximum effective range on point targets. Torso and headshots are being made at longer distances than 550m with the 5.56.

Well... yes and no. While longer range shots are possible, the book says 550 point and 800 area target.

 

[Powerglide]

There are some units there that have some "reach out" solutions. Sometimes though it's just M4 on duty and it seems the enemy always knows when you're short.They will engage for a good long time if they think they can.I'm talkin 400 to 800 meters.But, they break off just before AIR comes in, usually.

 

[Owen]

The book effective range is as much about the shooter as it it is about the gun. For instance, the book effective range for the M9 is 50m, but it will surely ruin someone's day at 100m . The military just doesn't expect the average soldier to be capable of making hit past 50m with a handgun.

 

[JSNAPS]

It was fine for me while I was serving, but back here I much prefer 6.8 or 7.62.

 

[dprice3844444]

223 or 308 at any range,if you hit it,it will bleed and die,sometimes not right away.us has med evacs,the enemy does not.takes 4 guys to carry a wounded guy.

 

[RhinoDefense]

Well... yes and no. While longer range shots are possible, the book says 550 point and 800 area target.

I don't care what the TM says, I base my effectiveness on real world results, ie dead enemies, not decade old doctrine. Real world results beat paperback theories. When I've got groups of DMs making first shot kills at 700-800m with MK262, I trust them versus what the book says they're supposed to be able to hit at what distance.

 

[Driftertank]

Forgive my possibly ignorant annoyance, but the "it takes x number of people to deal with one wounded man" stuff has always bugged me. It's the kind of thing spouted by accountants, statisticians, and other REMF's, in my opinion.

Frankly, were i in a situation where people who don't like me are shooting at me, i want my weapon to deliver as grievous an injury as can be managed. I'm not really interested in combat-inneffective-ratios. I want the guy shooting at me to stop shooting at me, either by choice, by inability, or by outright death.

The "wounding ratio," truth or not, sounds too much like defensive justification for not providing that capability, IMHO. But, i've never been a soldier, been issued a weapon, or been told by my superiors that a wounded shooter is better than a dead shooter. So, if my opinion, as a civilian, is way off base from what the guys in boots believe, well i guess i'm sorry.

Also, apologies for the rant.