Combat distance

[Quartus]

Scott, you missed the point. I was responding solely to the silly idea that the 5.56 is not lethal past 200 meters. That it is less effective than the 7.62 at 600 or 800 meters is not in dispute.


But the fact that we are engaging targets with rifles at those extended ranges tells me that our troops need more training in range estimation and knowing their own limitations. Regardless of what the round is intrinsically capable of, very few soldiers are going to get hits at that range with even a scoped heavy barreled .308, let alone an iron sighted service rifle. That is just reality, and it makes all discussions of capability at that range mere mental gymnastics, having no bearing on the subject of which rifle is best for our troops.

And it matters not at all that in the Iraqi situation the troops find themselves with targets at that range. They still can't hit them, and could not if they were all equipped with M-14s or M-1s or FN-FALs or whatever your favorite .30 cal rifle may be.

In short, 600 or 800 meter targets aren't about caliber. They're about training. Not marksmanship training, but simply knowing which weapons are appropriate for targets at that range.

Infantry rifles of whatever caliber are not suitable weapons for targets at that range. Squad MGs at least, and preferably company mortars. And up. Reapply as needed.

 

[goon]

In all likelyhood, Quartus is right.
I know that the average soldier isn't gonna hit a target at 300M, and from the sounds of his statement, he once wore a jar on his head.
I could hit pretty well on paper, but that paper was sitting still, well lit, and not shooting at me.
The whole time that I was in the Army, I only shot about 300 rounds all told out of the M-16. About 100 or so in training, a few more in live fire exercises, and about 50 more per qualification. Maybe 400 rounds, but still not many.
I have already shot my new AK that much.
What they ought to do is let everyone keep their M-16, but issue couple of M-14's per squad.
Sorta like the Russians do with the SVD.
I would bet that you guys have already come to that conclusion, but who has time to read all of those posts?

 

[Denny Hansen]

FWIW-

Years ago I read a report from a U.S. Army colonel who was extremely unhappy with the adaption of the new service cartridge/rifle. He was concerned that troops would shoot too fast, that the new cartridge was too small to be effective against the enemy, and that the quantity of ammo a soldier could carry was not as important as how powerful the ammunition was.





The gentleman was talking about the Krag in .30-40 that had just replaced the .45-70 Government, circa 1896. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Denny

 

[Marko Kloos]

In 20 years, someone will lament the introduction of the 4.5mm caseless tungsten sabot, using the same rationale.

"Too small, too ineffective. So what if the troopers can carry 750 rounds of ammo? Now the old 5.56, that was a combat round...chambered in a rifleman's rifle, the old M-16."

 

[QuarterBoreGunner]

lol- you forgot to use the <cranky_old_man_voice> tag!

 

[mercedesrules]

Shorten the barrels on them to 18", giving them the same OAL as an M16: 40". Or, the same OAL as a 20" bbl CQB shotgun, for that matter.

How much does barrel length affect the inherent accuracy of a .308 battle rifle (assuming sight radius is kept constant)? From a rest, is a 21" battle rifle going to outshoot a similar 16" carbine at longer ranges?

mercedesrules

 

[Ian]

Barrel length isn't a major factor in accuracy for a combat rifle. It might be a factor for serious benchrest match shooters, but I don't think it is. The biggest effect of a shorter barrel is a lower muzzle velocity.

BTW, welcome to THR, mercedes.

 

[Onslaught]

I would bet that you guys have already come to that conclusion, but who has time to read all of those posts?

And since I'm not the first guy to state the (supposed) obvious without reading all the posts first, here I go too...

These enemies at 700 meters that the M16's aren't effective at hitting... what exactly are 90%+ of them firing back with? 7.62x39 probably... 5.45x39 maybe. Either way, they're making little dustballs 200 yards in front of our soldiers with the slower, heavier round, or firing a terribly ineffective, lightweight little cartridge at a distance farther than that distance it was determined to be effective.

I don't see the problem.

 

[MrAcheson]

The gentleman was talking about the Krag in .30-40 that had just replaced the .45-70 Government, circa 1896. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Unfortunately this gentleman was also right. The US faced Spaniards with mausers during the Spanish-American War. It is not a coincidence that we switched to the mauser-cloned 1903 Springfield right after the war.

 

[goon]

The US faced Spaniards with mausers during the Spanish-American War. It is not a coincidence that we switched to the mauser-cloned 1903 Springfield right after the war.

No one will dispute that the Mauser is a better weapon than the Krag, but I doubt that a group charging uphill with any weapon ever handed down to an infantryman would have done much better.

I am inclined to think that all things being equal, a group of riflemen with 1903 Springfields would really put a hurting on a group of massed infantry charging up a hill, even today with modern assault rifles.

One of the first rules; Defend higher ground.

 

[Quartus]

he once wore a jar on his head.

Nah, I were an Army puke.

I could hit pretty well on paper, but that paper was sitting still, well lit, and not shooting at me.

Oh, details, details!

The whole time that I was in the Army, I only shot about 300 rounds all told out of the M-16. About 100 or so in training, a few more in live fire exercises, and about 50 more per qualification.

They're down to 50 rounds for qualification!


That's sick. We shot 100 or 150 for qual, and often plenty more than 200 in one training. One time up in Ft. Lewis we went to qualify, and somebody had misplaced a decimal point. (I think.) Anyway, we had waaaaaay too much ammo, and the old man didn't want to mess with the paperwork and turn it all in. So some of us fools got to shoot it all up! Not everyone wanted to shoot, and for some reason the old man was in a jolly mood, so those who wanted to shoot, did, and the rest loaded mags. 'Course, those who shot did have some pretty dirty rifles to clean.

Except for one smart alec who managed to have his rifle secured in the rear, and used someone elses.

Man, did I have a blast! 25 meter target pops up? Nooo problem! 20 rounds full auto!

Didn't hit many 300 meter targets that way, though.


Most fun I've ever had shooting!

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I would like to share a few of my observations based on my experience as an infantryman and the 6-monthes I spent in Afghanistan.

There has been a great deal of talk on this thread about issueing different types of weapons to allow soldiers to engages enemy personnel at a variety of distances, under varying conditions. The military already does this. Platoons have machineguns to engage enemy personnel at long range to allow squads to maneuver to within the effective range of their weapon systems. This is the idea behind maneuver warfare.

Maneuver requires fire, in this case by the platoons machineguns, and movement, in this case by the squads. It is important to keep in mind that the role of the infantry in combat is to close with and destroy the enemy. The way we set the conditions in order to allow this to happen to echelon our fires.

In order to echelon fires effectively we employ not only direct fire weapon systems but indirect fire weapons as well. For example, We would use mortars to suppress the enemy in order to allow the platoon in the example above to move within a reasonable range of the enemy. The platoon would then establish a firing position to allow the squads to advance closer to the enemy under the blanket of protection provided not only by the mortars but the platoon's machineguns as well. Done correctly, the squads to move close enough to the enemy to assault. Of course this is a simplification of the process and in reality it is somewhat more complex but our soldiers practice this on a regular basis and are very good at it.

I would also like to comment as to the effectiveness of the 5.56mm, the M855 round and the M-4 weapon system. My company was involved in several engagements in Afghanistan at ranges from 50-600 meters. Not one soldiers, non-commisioned officer or officer in my company or my battalion had any complaint with regard to the performance of their weapons. I had the opportunity to work with or observe numerous special operations units from a variety of countries and invariably they carried a weapon chambered in 5.56mm, most often an M-4. These soldiers all had access to a variety of different weapons and I believe the silent endorsement of the M-4 really put the debate to rest. In fact, it was not until I returned from Afghanistan that I heard about the lack of effectiveness of the 5.56mm.

I am not an expert on the terminal ballistics of the M855. If the assertions that its ability to incapacitate an enemy soldier at medium to long range are to be believed my question is "So What?" A solid thoracic hit with a rifle round is a life altering, if not ending, event. That enemy's ability to continue to participate effectively in the engagement has been significantly reduced, if not terminated, by that hit. Does anyone honestly believe that he is going to continue to be an effective participant in hostilities. I do not and my experience supports my belief.

Much has been said about our soldiers ability to shoot. It is true that the current Army qualification reuires soldiers to fire 40 rounds; 20 from the foxhole supported and 20 from the prone unsupported. The maximum engagement distance is 300 meters. Do I believe that this is the best that we can do? No. Does it adequately prepare our soldiers? My experience says yes. I witnessed a company of soldiers, who by and large were a product solely of military marksmanship training, effectively engage enemy personnel at ranges out to 600 meters.

Would I like to see better training. You bet. But we are a resource-constrained military. Often commanders are hard-pressed to resource the training that we want to conduct. It is unfortunate but true. Nonetheless, our training continues to be the best of any military force in the world as we continually prove.

I apologize for the lengthy reply. I hope you will consider my opinion in the on-going debate.


Kevin

 

[Scott Evans]

by Blackhawk 6
I witnessed a company of soldiers, who by and large were a product solely of military marksmanship training, effectively engage enemy personnel at ranges out to 600 meters.

Blackhawk 6,
First let me say thank you for your service and that I’m glad that you are home. I agree entirely with what you put forth with the only exception being that 5.56 is the best we can do. Providing a better round only helps the man in the field and in no way diminishes. All you said still applies only the distance the squad must close to engage the enemy would be less. They would be under your guns longer and need thicker cover. How is this a bad thing?

As to some of the other comments for keeping things as they are:

There is no argument from me as to the lethality of the 5.56 at 0-200m. Nor would I argue that accuracy is a problem with the 5.56 even out to 500m.

I will argue however; that hitting power for the 5.56 at distance is far too anemic considering the availability of MORE effective chamberings. I’d further argue that with proper training a good percentage of our troops can hit human, torso size targets at 500m provided quality ammo, weapon and training. Also, hit probability goes up dramatically with the actual taking of such shots. That’s exactly why Blackhawk 6’s unit returned fire from 600m away. Last; it takes time to bring supporting arms to bear. During that time you need accurate, hard hitting fire down range.

It’s never wrong to improve on what you have.

 

[Scooter]

I'm not even sure firing at targets over 500 meters with personal weapons is even considered doctrine anymore. Maybe an M60, bit not anything in 5.56mm.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Mr. Evans-

I agree with you. I did not mean to imply that there was not room for improvement. My point was only that the 5.56mm is not the inadequate round that some make it out to be and that despite its limitations our military continues to employ it successfully.

I would welcome a better round, more training and/or a better weapon system. Perhaps, in time we will receive some or all of these. I'm looking forward to it.

Scooter-

I believe your comment was based on incorrect information. The maximum effective range for the M-249 machinegun is 600 meters for a point target, i.e. a person, and 800 meters for an area target, i.e a bunker. Those distances for the M-16A2 are 550 meters and 800 meters (on three round burst) respectively. I do ot recall the exact distances for the M-4 but I believe they were 460 meters and 600 meters. I am unaware of anything published by the Army that restricts soldiers to engaging targets at 500 meters or less.

It is possible that your information is based on a particular unit's SOP or possibly the orders of an individual. Current Army policy is that the soldier always has the right to self-defense. Any unit SOP or leader's order that denies a soldier the ability to engage a target that he feels threatened by beyond any arbitrary distance, 500 meters or otherwise, not only contradicts this policy, but, in my opinion is irresponsible. Also, I am unsure how such a policy would be enforced since most soldiers are not adept at range estimation.

I hope this helps.

Kevin

 

[Quartus]

Whoa! Did I get confused! That was a schizophrenic experience!

Blackhawk 6 , I didn't notice the 6 on your username until after re-reading a few times. There's a poster called Blackhawk, with whom I've had a few interesting exchanges, and your writing styles and background are so diffferent I was wondering what happened to you!


Thanks for your input, anyway, and your service. And welcome aboard! Funny how troops who have used it don't seem to be the ones knocking the 5.56.

Scott, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the 5.56 suffers a noticeable loss of lethality past 200 meters, but the facts are otherwise. It does the job. And while I agree completely that better and more training would be a good thing (I tend to favor elite forces over numbers) the reality is that isn't going to happen.

There is also the matter of how much rifle and ammo you can carry. It DOES count in battle. There is no way to argue that a man can hump just as much 7.62 as he can 5.56 and still have the same level of fatigue. And even for mech infantry (which I was) fatique still counts.


It may well be that there is a better choice than the 5.56. Someone mentioned the .243, and that would sure be a contender. But a military issue rifle has to be a compromise between firepower and portability. We just can't have it all. If we could, we would scorn the 7.62 and issue full auto Barrett .50s.

The trick is to find the most useful rifle for the average conditions and the realistic level of training. 600-800 meter targets are not in that equation.

 

[Okie1KnoB]

How about the 6.5x55

IMHO the 6.5x55 would make a great round for Mil. use... Im a Old guy with tired eye's... !!! I was at the range getting ready for a Mil. Bolt Action Long Range match and I setup on the 500m (the Rams) targets... 10rds = 5 rams using a 1900 M96 Obie with Micrometer sights.. using 140gr. Seirra BTHP MatchKings pushed by 47.0gr. of RL22... and I don't consider myself that good now...

You would think a Young set of Eye's could do a lot better that 5 out of 10... @ 500M....

Ask the Russian's what they think of the Swedish Mil. round.....

Okie1KnoB....

 

[goon]

Ask the Russian's what they think of the Swedish Mil. round.....

Or the Finnish riflemen that delivered that round to them.

 

[Scott Evans]

Back to my original premises for this thread:

Quote from my opening post:
In some past discussions I’ve mentioned that combat distance for point (man size) targets is out to 500m and 800m for area targets. With this in mind I have felt that the current issue 5.56 lacked sufficient energy at those distances to be the chambering for our standard infantry rifle.

First I wanted to establish that our troops do engage the enemy, with their rifles, well beyond the 300m BZO. Marines are currently doing it in Iraq and Blackhawk 6’s first hand account of the Army doing it in Afghanistan.

That has been established; it’s in the play book and it’s in practice!

As such the weapon and the chambering issued for this task should be capable to the degree of being more then nominally effective at the limits of it’s COMBAT range.


2nd point was the lack of energy of the 5.56 at those ranges (i.e. 500m and beyond). This was not an issue of accuracy. Lethality is a combination of many factors but the amount energy a round caries into a target is relevant. This is not to insinuate that the 5.56 would simply bounce off bodies at 500m. Certainly it can injure severely or kill one that is hit. However; the 5.56 is far less likely to penetrate a sand bag, wall, vehicle door, body armor or hasty berm at those distances than other rounds currently available. As such the 5.56 is NOT as effective as others … we could and should do better.

Last is the combat load issue. I agree that the selection of the round is a trade off between power and weight. I think however; that we have tipped too far to the one extreme with the 5.56 and are giving up too much in the way of power at distance.

 

[Jeff White]

Scott,

One of the problems in fighting in the desert is that you can often see way farther then the maximum range of your weapons. This doesn't just go with small arms, but is especially a problem with ATGMs because of the additional target aquisition capabilities that the high powered optics gives them. I didn't see the incident you describe, but I would guess that the building was 7-800 meters away if an AT4 fell short. The Marines firing on the building with their rifles at that range was probably more of a leadership problem then anything else. As they get more experience they won't make that mistake. Blackhawk 6 is right in that soldiers aren't very adept at range estimation. A good commercial laser rangerfinder or two would be a helpful addition to a squad's MTOE.


You are correct in your assertion that M855 is pushing the limits of it's effectiveness at 5-600 meters. But what is the threat we're facing? Poorly trained soldiers firing 7.62x39 AKs. We've already got them ranged. For the PK machineguns we have M240s in the platoons. Special Operations Forces have had success with 75 and 77 grain 5.56mm ammunition at extended ranges in Afghanistan.

Are American soldiers dying in combat because our current service rifle and ammunition is failing them? No. Could we do better? Probably. Is it worth the money it would cost to change? Probably not. A wholesale changeover to a new rifle and cartridge would not be economically feasible. Besides the new rifle, ammunition and magazines, you'd need all of the anicillary things that go along with them, cleaning kits, spare parts, web gear, manuals, maybe ranges. IMHO, this money would be better spent on more and better small arms training with the weapons we have. You may soon see SPRs in 6.8x43 in the hands of special forces units, but the big Army (and Marines) will most likely stay with the M16 series until there is a major breakthrough in technology. What we'd gain by changing to a new rifle/caliber is simply not enough to justify the cost.

We can fill all the forums with threads espousing ourfavorite rifle/cartridge for Infantry use, but the fact is, that none of them offer a big enough increase in capability to justify the expense of changing.

Jeff

 

[betterluckytg]

All this talk about weight of ammo brings to mind the proposed new weapons "system" I recall reading about a year or two ago. Wasn't it something that weighed (empty!) in the neighborhood of 20 pounds, shot 5.56 as well as a 20mm cannon-type shell, and incorporated a rangefinder? It required batteries, IIRC. I remember thinking at the time "Surely this is a joke!"

Seems to me that the military is so caught up in the technology thing that common sense is going out the window, at least as far as equipping the grunts. For the type of combat we're now facing, the idea of equipping at least two or three men in a squad with sand-cut, scoped FALs with the gas set on "Gr"and the rest w/ '16s would make a lot of sense. And slow twist '16s w/ a 55 grain bullet would be icing on the cake. And I'm damned glad I didn't have to hump the load these guys are saddled with back in the dark ages of '66 and '67.

On the other hand, what do Corporals know? Well,I know it's a helluva lot more enjoyable discussing it here rather than around a helmet full of donated C-rats heated w/ a little C4.

 

[goon]

Yep, I remember reading about that beast too.
The range finder with the batteries struck me as particularly amusing.
What happens when your watch battery goes dead?
You can't aim.
I couldn't understand why they couldn't copy the Soviet range finder reticle that is used on the SVD, but scale it to the 5.56.
If they want a 20MM why not come up with a single shot add-on like the 203, only in 20MM?
That would have saved money, and some poor grunts' backs.
I get the feeling that the guys who design these things have never had to carry them.

 

[Quartus]

Hmmmm. The old equation. Cost vs. Benefit. Well said, Jeff.

Scott, pay attention to this comment of Jeff's:

The Marines firing on the building with their rifles at that range was probably more of a leadership problem then anything else. As they get more experience they won't make that mistake.

Mistake. That's what it was. Even with a 7.62, that's a mistake. Even with a 7.62, it's not effective. Engaging the enemy in buildings at that distance has little or no military value, and they shouldn't be doing it.

We don't need to equip our troops to make those kind of mistakes. We need to equip them to do the job they are trained and expected to do.


And it may be that the 5.56 goes a bit too far in the direction of portability, but the 7.62 goes too far in the other direction. I know. I've humped both over the hills.


If we were starting from scratch, I might opt for something in between. But we ain't. And any change in between those two just doesn't give enough bang for the buck to be justified.


In a perfect world there would be plenty of money for such incremental pursuits of perfection. But there isn't.

 

[Glamdring]

Quartus & Blackhawk 6 I think part of the debate here is that many (most? all?) of the people posting here are gun loonies.

Only a few have training and/or experience in INFANTRY combat.

The skillset that someone used to shooting AT prairie dogs at 400+ yards for fun is very different from 11B.

Just think if we had a discussion about room clearing. Most people here would be argueing over 45 vs 40 vs 9mm vs bla bla. Infantry would be more likely to talk about blowing hole in a wall with a 155 (in direct fire mode) or tank main gun. Followed by grenades and then going in with M16.

Might be fun to consider how infantry would go about clearing a prairie dog town Somehow I don't see them using a heavy barreled varmint gun!!!

 

[SapperLeader]

Soldiers firing that far away at targets ...

is definitly a leadership problem. Team leaders should be marking the outer limits of effective range with thier 203s. I just met the platoon sergeant for that major engagement in afghanistan(sorry, cant remember the name of it but it made the news.) His platoon was cut off in a bottom of a valley, surrounded by enemy troops in cave systems. His team leaders marked out to 300 and 400 meters with smoke, and were told only to engage targets within those limits. Most of the casulaties they inflcited were not due to the infantryman but from gunship planes and artillery. As far as full auto and 3 round bursts go, his men were told to fire on semi auto, and the only weapon system they ran out on was the machineguns and saws. THe were engaged for something like 17-18 hours. Having been both a team leader and a squad leader, I know that my troops do like to shoot things with bursts, but as a leader your supposed to smack the back of thier heads and tell them to go back to semi auto and aim. 3 round bursts may be great for cqb, but its not the best thing to be doing at longer ranges.