Marines choose standard-length M-16A4...

[HorseSoldier]

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

XM8 melted during sustained fire testing.

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]

Who can't hit what they are shooting at?

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