M-16 performance in Iraq/Afganistan ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the simple sentence where BH6 stated as much. Since one rarely knows personally the person being addressed over a virtually anonymous system, I typically take what should be considered reliable print media over what someone (unknown to me, and with unknown creds) has to say.

Reports I have read- not exclusively from Afganistan- indicate the M252 is the support weapon of choice, when available. Considering that the 81mm has about 2,000 meters more reach, is more accurate, hits a lot harder, and is easier to fire rapidly, that makes sense.

John
 
Jshirley,
Wasn't flaming ya, just thought it was kinda funny...

Reports I have read- not exclusively from Afganistan- indicate the M252 is the support weapon of choice,

Can you quote your sources for the 252 was weapon of choice? I don't doubt you but I would just like to know the rational used for this. The RED(risk estimate distance) for the 60mm is much smaller than the 81 which in my opinion means 60s are more accurate. They are lighter and an IN unit can carry more rounds(also lighter) than the 81mm. Yes, Bigger is better until you hit the 120mm size, then you start to lose accuracy, but all the SOF and Conventional unit personnel I've spoken with have preferred the 60mm if they were doing any type of movement.
 
Especially when the guy you are quoting to(BH6) was the CDR of the company that had the Times reporter embedded in his company, and was the only CDR to bring mortars into the valley on the initial days and who also had 81mm's co-located with his company when they did arrive.

If you want to hear a good story regarding the employment of mortars during Anaconda, ask BH6 about using mortars and CAS in conjunction with each other to eliminate some AQ. (That was your company, wasn't it, BH6? I know the story was tainted by SGT Daniels' involvement, but the story is still funny.)

The only combat experience I have employing mortars involves calling for some ILLUM rounds at KAF during Anaconda to spot a couple locals after a minestrike killed one of CDR Gulali's soldiers and injured Gulali's brother. We ended up spotting the two guys, one carrying a shovel or hoe, the other packing what was unmistakeably a TM-62 AT mine. However, since we didn't witness them emplacing the mine that detonated, we couldn't engage them. The Canadians eventually fired their coax's to pin them down, but the locals came out to see what was happening, and the two minelayers got away. The best part of that engagement, shutting the airfield down and telling the AF to turn around and go elsewhere until further notice.
 
OEF_VET,
BH6 told me he didn't think it was funny, then proceeded to tell me two or three stories that had me rolling on the floor laughing, and I don't think he likes SGT Daniels...
 
By funny, I mean the after effects to the two yahoos shooting at his men. They thought they were pretty smart, but they got the chance to meet their 70 virgins, post haste. What they did to his company prior to their demise was most definitely not funny.

No one likes SGT Daniels'. His being in uniform is an affront to all who have honorably worn it over the last 229 years.

Frank
 
SGT Daniels::fire:

Funny how my 1SG always found a reason to move my rifle a little farther away every time he was around......

For the record, SGT Daniels had no role in the elimination of that enemy mortar despite what the Army Times reported. So much for "reliable print media."
 
Are you that crazy SOB that played "mortar ping-pong" with the AQ guys on the hill?

If so, please accept my virtual pat on the back. You are a bonafide war hero!!!
 
Yeah, Daniels' had a way of making himself out to be a hero, even when he wasn't involved in the incident. He also told a Louisville paper that he was present for the battle on Roberts' Ridge, and that he was close personal friends with both Roberts' and the AF pararescueman, Cunningham.

I tried prior to OEF to have him busted for wearing a ficticious EIB, but it didn't go anywhere. The chain-of-command let it slide.
 
Neither crazy, an SOB or a war hero. I will accept the pat on the back on behalf of my guys. True heroes who received far too little recognition.

"Mortar ping-pong" would be another error on the part of the "reliable print media."
 
Back to the AR dicsussion, does the M855 have a cannelure? I know on the M193 that that particular structural weakness aided significantly in fragmentation.
 
Yes it does.

According to the guys with the calculators, if the bullets are moving at the appropriate velocity, terminal performance is the same. Real-world experience (mine and others) seems to contradict the velocity/fragmentation theory.

Regardless, as I have stated previously, I believe the round is adequate.
 
AhmuqGB,

I'll look through my old emails, and see if I have them saved...though I may not. I've deleted almost all of my .mil addy mail already.

Yeah, one can fire a 60mm a little closer to your own troops, but that's just because the blast is smaller. Those little bastards aren't nearly as stable, though as you mention, the rounds do weigh less.

John
 
Blackhawk 6 wrote:

You got a hold of some bad information. There were numerous engagements involving small-arms. Mortars did play a significant role, but there was no issue regarding the employment of mortars and CAS.
Sir, the 1st SGT wasn't stating that they didn't have small arms engagements, but that he did not feel there were engagements beyond the range where 5.56mm weapons would be effective, but inside the range where 7.62mm weapons would be effective.

Do I have to elevate my feet?:D

I offered this as a counter to the those who cite the 5.56mm round as a crippling inadequacy of the M16 series weapons and offer the 7.62 NATO as a better solution in all cases.

I think you will agree that line soldiers a. do not have reliability problems with their weapons, because they take care of them, and b. while there is professional curiousity about follow-on systems, there is no significant discussion of fielding a replacement to the M4/M16 among active duty combat units.

The AKM/M16 discussion is simply the longest running internet worm extant. They seldom give adequate weight to the professionalism of our officer and NCO corps. I think y'all are doing just fine, and as a group are without question smarter and better educated than the soldiers of my day.

RLTW
 
According to the guys with the calculators, if the bullets are moving at the appropriate velocity, terminal performance is the same. Real-world experience (mine and others) seems to contradict the velocity/fragmentation theory.
Been thinking about this since BH6 first posted about the experiences with M855 failing at close range yet performing well at 100m+. Could it be that at close range, since velocity is still quite high, these rounds are zipping right through the skinnier folks of the Taliban/Al Queda persuasion before having a chance to make a full 90 degree tumble and fragment? Perhaps at the longer ranges they are slowed enough to fragment or at least tumble a bit before exiting.

I can't put my finger on it, but I vaguely remember reading about some gel block tests where M855 penetrated a little deeper than M193 before fragmenting (which seems to make sense to me since it is slightly heavier).
 
DMK,

That certainly seems like a reasonable explanation. The problem is that M855 failures and successes are being experience at all ranges. For every credible report of a success that can be provided at a given range, there is someone reporting a failure.

By way of example, I worked with an officer who was a platoon leader with the 10th Mountain Division on 3-4 October 1993. His longest engagement (according to him) was about 25 feet, with the average being about 10 feet. The weapon was an M-16A2. You would think if there was a propensity for the round to have too much velocity he would have experienced it. This directly contrasts to the report AhmugGB posted.

The issue can never be resolved conclusively. Due to the nature of the engagements and the operational environment, detailed analysis, such as that conducted in law enforcement shootings, can not be conducted. As a result, much of the evidence is anecdotal and many of the people sharing their experience have an agenda. (I suppose this applies to my comments as well, though I do not believe I have an agenda.)

The problem, as I see it, is not the theory about velocity/fragmentation. It is the promises of incapacitation it makes. I do not doubt bullets are fragmenting or failing to fragment per the laboratory tests. What I do doubt is fragmentation equals incapacitation and lack of fragmentation equals lack of incapacitation. Suppose a bullet fragments but hits nothing vital at 8 feet? Suppose I hit a guy in the spinal cord at 300 meters? Which one was better.

In my opinion, the people running around talking about velocities and fragmentation are paying too much attention to what the bullet needs to do and not enough attention to what the shooter needs to do.
 
The problem, as I see it, is not the theory about velocity/fragmentation. It is the promises of incapacitation it makes. I do not doubt bullets are fragmenting or failing to fragment per the laboratory tests. What I do doubt is fragmentation equals incapacitation and lack of fragmentation equals lack of incapacitation. Suppose a bullet fragments but hits nothing vital at 8 feet? Suppose I hit a guy in the spinal cord at 300 meters? Which one was better.

In my opinion, the people running around talking about velocities and fragmentation are paying too much attention to what the bullet needs to do and not enough attention to what the shooter needs to do.
Yea, that's an excellent point BH6. If there's one thing I've learned from the wiser folks here its this: Any firearm/ammo is just a tool, the man/woman is the weapon. Either can fail without warning, be ready to go to plan B.

I'm just trying to be as aware of my weapon systems' capabilities and weaknesses as possible so that I may use them to my advantage.

Thanks for sharing your experience. :)
 
Just to clarify, yes the M855 will fragment, but it does not fragment as far as the M193.

As far as reliability, direct gas impingement isn't a problem looking for a solution; it's how the rifle was designed to operate. Internet commandos and XM8 nerds will tell you that gas blowing back into the receiver is a huge liability in terms of maintenance and jamming, but really it isn't.

There's my .$02. I didn't bother to read all 5 pages of this massive thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top