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

[HorseSoldier]

M4 is equipped with the burst setting, M4A1 with full auto. Originally, M4A1 was for SOF units only. No idea on the current basis of issue for the Big Army.

.223 is better than .30 for one thing and one thing alone: shoulder-fired full-auto.

And for double the basic load of ammo. And for 150% of the rounds in the gun. And for significantly reduced recoil, making the 5.56mm weapon much faster in multiple engagements of the same or assorted targets, etc.

We don't even train to do much, if any, full automatic fire any more. 5.56mm is just dramatically superior to .308 for general infantry service on semi auto. There is (some) discussion of upping caliber towards the .260-280 range (and strictly intermediate in power), but no one who is in any way accountable for what the troops go downrange with is pushing .308 . . . probably something to do with the fact that it was obsolete when the first M14s were rolling off the assmbly line and, for general infantry use, it has not gotten less obsolete in the last 50 years.

 

[chieftain]

We don't even train to do much, if any, full automatic fire any more. 5.56mm is just dramatically superior to .308 for general infantry service on semi auto. There is (some) discussion of upping caliber towards the .260-280 range (and strictly intermediate in power), but no one who is in any way accountable for what the troops go downrange with is pushing .308 . . . probably something to do with the fact that it was obsolete when the first M14s were rolling off the assmbly line and, for general infantry use, it has not gotten less obsolete in the last 50 years.

Interesting.

The only folks that I ever met that considered the 7.62 NATO obsolete are those that haven't used it in battle. Those of us that have fought with both NATO loads, 5.56 and 7.62 most often prefer the 7.62. Not withstanding less rounds on board.

It isn't because the old 55gr bullet was that bad. It is just the 7.62 is better. I have yet to hear anything about the 62 gr "penetrator" being any better and in most cases worse than the 55gr.

Also with the 7.62 we didn't have to find a load that "worked" reliably in making the black hats go DRT.

Besides, your medium guns still use the 7.62.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Doggieman]

Well I wouldn't say the .30 caliber round was ever "obsolete" any more than the .45 round was "obsolete" when they phased in 9mm.

I would have to agree that the .260 or thereabouts round is probably the best for infantry. The .22 is just not enough, the .30 is too much for the average grunt with average marksmanship (of lack thereof).

When I said "full auto" I should have said "the .22 round is best for HIGH-VOLUME fire." 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.

Snipers, of course, who can hit things, sometimes on their first shot, use larger caliber weapons.

 

[Number 6]

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.

And you can back this statement up with some evidence, right?

 

[Doggieman]

I welcome you to prove that statement wrong.

Here (re Project SALVO):

"The conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random — that is, accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.

"These conclusions suggested that infantry should be equipped with a fully-automatic rifle of some sort in order to increase the rate of fire. It was also clear, however, that such weapons dramatically increased ammunition use and in order for a rifleman to be able to carry enough ammunition for a firefight they would have to carry something much lighter."

Ezell, Edward Clinton (1983). Small Arms of the World. New York: Stackpole Books, 46-47.

 

[Doggieman]

here's more

In June, the ORO published Hitchman's report "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon." Hitchman found that the majority of combat rifle use did not exceed 300 yards, and that marksmanship was severely degraded by terrain and visibility at ranges beyond 100 yards. In fact, the chance of being struck by a rifle bullet was seen as being nearly as random as being struck by a fragment from a high explosive shell. The time and amount of target exposure had more bearing on whether a target was hit versus marksmanship skills. Given such, an infantry weapon designed to provide controllable "pattern-dispersion" within a 300 yd range might be preferable to a weapon that provides precise single shots at longer distances. Furthermore, at the shorter ranges, a smaller caliber weapon might give acceptable "wounding effects" and allow for controllable "salvo or volley automatic" fire. The key to effectiveness is control; an uncontrollable automatic weapon is seen to be no more advantageous than a semi-auto counterpart. Hitchman projected that a four round salvo with a predictable 20" spread might provide double the hit probability at 300 yards over a single shot fired from a M1 rifle. A lighter, smaller caliber cartridge would have the side benefit of allowing enough ammunition to be carried for an equivalent number of fired salvos to the individual cartridge capacity of the current rifle.

From: http://www.thegunzone.com/spiw.html

In other words: "These guys can't hit the broad side of a barn. Let's make sure they can sling a lot of lead so we get a higher probability of hits."

 

[Number 6]

Unicorns exist. See if you can disprove that statement.

A couple problems with your "data." First, your first reference is over twenty years old, and appears to be quite dated. As for your second reference, that is a battlefield study from WWII. Training, tactics, and equipment have all changed since then. Please cite something that has been produced within the last ten years, and then it might have some relevance.

Second, the first source you cite is an study that was done to increase hit probability. That does not translate into soldiers being poor marksman. What the study is pointing out is that in combat there are factors that are exogenous to the ability of the shooter that can prevent them from hitting their target. A moving target is going to be harder to hit, therefore more rounds are going to be expended to hit the target. That does not mean that the shooter is a poor marksman, but instead speaks to the limits of combat. Both the studies you cite point to environmental and tactical factors that reduce the ability of a soldier to hit their mark, that does not mean that the soldier is a poor shot. Might I ask, what are your criteria for being a good marksman, and can that be achieved in a modern combat setting?

 

[Nhsport]

A year + back a Guard from my state (ct) was due to go to Afganastan. There was a big stink made as they were originally to take their "old" 20" M16s and Family ,friends,media,government,amd congressmen all got in a big frenzy because someone thought they deserved the "new and improved m4 carbines"
To be honest I read no more about this issue than the headlines but I remember thinking at the time that in Afganastan they might be better suited with the 20" rifles. I do not know the particular mission this Guard unit was headed to but in the end they were issues the Carbine.
I do think the marines are thinking correctly in this decision.
Does anyone know the barrel profile of these new guns? I myself have one upper built with an old 20" pencil 1/12 barrel and although it is long it really has fine ballance and isn't much slower or heavier than some of my carbines with the heavier barrels.
I don't claim any combat experience (I am a chairbourn ranger) and have never had to try and climb in or out of a vehicle with bad guys shooting at me.
Looking at these fine men and women serveing "over there" I can't help but wonder if some of this equipment that they are dragging around on a daily basis is handicapping them as much as it helps them?

 

[uk roe hunter]

rifles

In the UK we used to fave the slr (fnfal) without full auto. In 7.62 nato. It was great. Tough reliable and accurate.

I remember speaking to one of my Sgts about rifles. He was from a unit called 148 battery. In the falklands war they did some attacks up mount tumbledown with the guards. They were issued with m16 rifles as a special unit. He said they were a cracking piece of kit but he had to put a number of rounds into the Argentinians to put them down. he put it down and picked up an argentinian rifle knowing that when that .30 cal bullet hits, you stay down.

When we had our trusty slrs replaced rumours abounded that we would be getting the by then excellant M16, becuase of reliability problems with our SA80. but no it didn't happen. Politics rules and we got the SA80. When i served in beltast which was all urban patrol work i would have loved my old rifle back.

so really your M16 is pretty good comparitively speaking.

uk

 

[HorseSoldier]

A couple problems with your "data." First, your first reference is over twenty years old, and appears to be quite dated. As for your second reference, that is a battlefield study from WWII. Training, tactics, and equipment have all changed since then. Please cite something that has been produced within the last ten years, and then it might have some relevance.

Battlefield studies conducted concerning OIF and OEF within the last 12 months or so have found that the basic conclusion is (basically) correct -- the majority of individual engagements are occurring within 100 meters, and pretty much all are within 300 meters. Same song as in WW2 (and the later stages of WW1), and for the same reasons -- battlefield reality and human physiology/psychology combine to drastically reduce accuracy from what can be achieved when laying on freshly mowed grass in a good supported prone under full daylight illumination shooting at paper bullseyes that neither shoot back nor dive for cover erratically.

Well I wouldn't say the .30 caliber round was ever "obsolete" any more than the .45 round was "obsolete" when they phased in 9mm.

I'd actually say .308 was obsolete as an infantry rifle cartridge the day the War Department decided they wanted the M1 Garand chambered in .276 Pedersen (whose overall ballistics look curiously similar to 6.8mm Remington SPC). Which would make it obsolete about 20 years before it was introduced -- an obsolescence reinforced by the findings of every other major, and some minor, militaries the world over as evidence by the German desire for a 7mm intermediate round in the 1930s (logistical issues morphed that into the less effective 7.92x33 Kurz), the 1920s era Soviet proposals for a .25 caliber intermediate service rifle round and the later adoption of the (again less effective) 7.62x39, the British development of .280 and .280/30 after WW2, etc.

 

[Doggieman]

Might I ask, what are your criteria for being a good marksman, and can that be achieved in a modern combat setting?

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.

 

[wacki]

Remember what Clinton did to all those M14s rather than alter them and sell them to us!

No. what did he do? burn them?

 

[Jeremy2171]

I didn't seem to have any problem stopping people with one shot while I was in Mogadishu. Single hits center mass at ~200m or less worked fine.

 

[AZgunstudent]

Just an opinion, but I'm serving in Afghanistan right now with the AZ Army Guard. We replaced the aforementioned CT Guard unit (which also happens to be my old unit when I lived in CT - small world). I have talked to dozens of the outgoing CT guys. None complained about 5.56 "stopping power," and they had ample opportunity to use their weapons. Nor did I hear anyone complain about M4 reliability. They're infantry guys and keep their weapons clean, versus some support guys with filthy weapons.

They M4 is much handier when doing mounted patrolling, which is what many of the missions are here. The 20" rifles tend to hang up in vehicles a lot. Just for that reason, a lot of the guys prefer the M4. Also, if you have to go kick in doors in the compounds in which a lot of Afghans live, the short M4 is way better than a 20" rifle.

The M4 also has the collapsible/adjustable stock, which makes shooting in the IBA far easier than with the fixed stock of the A2 or A4. When shooting with the IBA on, I collapse the stock completely. At 5'8", I find the ridiculously long A2 stock virtually useless when wearing armor. You should see the average female soldier try to shoulder one when wearing armor. Even one of the biggest guys here, "Moose," only has the stock halfway extended on his M4, and he also doesn't like the A2 stock.

Agreed that the 20" barrel gives a little more range, but most guys aren't snipers or even Designated Marksmen and realistically aren't going to be making hits on Taliban at 300+ meters in a firefight where everyone is moving. This is why we have crew-served weapons and can get on the radio and call for fire.

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.

Objectively, the M16/M4 family isn't as reliable as some other weapons systems. Maybe the Marines do find the 20" rifle more reliable, or maybe they like the romance of the long barrel and the 500m shooting they do in their rifle quals. Maybe a good compromise for the OEF theater would be a 20" rifle with rails, a rugged 1-4X variable optical sight, and a collapsible stock. It would still be somewhat unhandy in vehicles, but better than the comparatively huge M16A4.

 

[buzz_knox]

No. what did he do? burn them?

Sent them to the crusher, along with large numbers of 1911s and M1s in storage.

And to add injury to insult, Janet Reno ordered the destruction of the Colt Government Models in .38 Super originally used by the FBI.

 

[Onmilo]

An M16A4 is comparatively huge!?
Wow,,,,
Have you been hanging around the Brits??

You might actually get the chance to meet a Marine over in the sandbox.
Ask to check out his rifle if he will let you.

You will find the longer barrel rifle balances better and feels lighter than the M4, especially when one goes hanging all the electronic stuff off the handguards that seems so popular a trend now.

Long rifles hang up no more frequently than short rifles when exiting a vehicle, though soldiers do appear to deploy the short barrel rifles more quickly once their feet are on the ground.

With modern optics and designators combat hit probability has increased substantially since the days of the good old M1.

Ammunition usage has not decreased because all good soldiers know flying bullets keep peoples heads down and this is such a wonderful thing, especially when moving forward.

 

[buzz_knox]

Long rifles hang up no more frequently than short rifles when exiting a vehicle, though soldiers do appear to deploy the short barrel rifles more quickly once their feet are on the ground.

A lot of the fighting currently is in close quarters. The long rifle stock of the 16A2/4 (which was designed for precision shooting by the marksmanship team and was adopted over the objections of those who used the rifles in combat) makes it more difficult to use in those situations. That's why you see Marines with A2/4s hanging the stock on top of the shoulder when doing entries. This situation is aggravated by the use of body armor and other gear.

 

[Onmilo]

Oh I totally agree that a shorter stock makes better sense for close quarter battle with the current ballistic protection equipment being fielded.

I was going to add in my previous post that I consider the area where the M4 really shines is in fact close quarter battle scenarios but decided against it.

With the coming of more and more effective and deadly armaments and the need to dress soldiers like knights of old we may very well end up with a much shorter fixed stock as standard issue in combat environments.

 

[HorseSoldier]

An M16A4 is comparatively huge!?
Wow,,,,
Have you been hanging around the Brits??

Sit in your car and try manuevering a 20" barrel, fixed stock AR around (I'd roll the windows down first ), or try running through your house at speed with the same rifle at the low ready occasionally bringing it up to "fire" and you'll see what he means.

He's completely correct, especially, as he noted, with body armor on.

 

[halvey]

I have talked to dozens of the outgoing CT guys. None complained about 5.56 "stopping power," and they had ample opportunity to use their weapons. Nor did I hear anyone complain about M4 reliability.

And to add to that, talked to a Special Forces guy last year. He's been in the Army for 17 years and SF for I think close to 15. Anyway, they went into Afghanistan right after 9/11 and were operating there for quite awhile. He showed me pics of them training with the 9mm Beretta's so I asked what he thought of the gun and the round. He said they haven't had any problems with it and its a good gun.

Maybe us civilians get more worked up over the stuff than the guys doing the fighting.

 

[AZgunstudent]

An M16A4 is comparatively huge!?
Wow,,,,
Have you been hanging around the Brits??

Nope, but I've talked to lots of other coalition people: French, Germans, New Zealanders, Koreans, etc. Compared to the M4, especially with the stock collapsed, the A2/A4 is very big and clunky.

You might actually get the chance to meet a Marine over in the sandbox.
Ask to check out his rifle if he will let you.

Be still my heart! You mean a lowly Nasty Girl like me might actually get a chance to meet a real-live, fire-breathing Marine? And he might even let me touch his sacred rifle? Geez, I just might faint if that happened!

You will find the longer barrel rifle balances better and feels lighter than the M4, especially when one goes hanging all the electronic stuff off the handguards that seems so popular a trend now.

I'm not sure how you know what a given rifle feels like in another man's hands. I am very familar with the longer variants of the M16. My issue weapon in basic training was an A2, and my first rifle qual (expert) with a Guard unit was with an M16A1. I've been doing this for a while. I have also owned several AR-pattern rifles and shot them fairly extensively at both long range and up close.

I do not find that the A2/A4 "balances better," though it may in your hands. I find it front-heavy and clunky compared to the M4, especially with that "electronic stuff" like the M68/PEQ-2/Surefire mounted. That stuff isn't so much a "trend" as mission-essential equipment.

I certainly do not find 4" of extra steel and handguard, along with a bigger stock, to "feel lighter" than my M4.

Long rifles hang up no more frequently than short rifles when exiting a vehicle,

That's a pretty authoritative statement. Not sure what your experience is. In a GAC (Ground Assault Convoy), I'm in full battle rattle, poured into an uparmored HMMWV surrounded by a couple of radios, BFT, ammo cans, ruck sacks, water, MREs, and BII. Space is at a premium. The M4 is simply smaller and therefore handier in a vehicle. Having handled both an A2 and an M4 in a HMMWV, I personally find the M4 easier to use. Your mileage may vary, assuming you've put in some miles in a HMMWV.

Re-reading the original article that started this thread, I see that even the Marines who field-tested the M4 preferred it to the A4. Their command just overrode their opinions.

 

[Blakenzy]

So those accesory rails that you see on every tacticool rifle nowadays was actually introduced in 1913? Where has it been all this time? Hibernating

 

['Card]

Darn, that means the Marines still don't trust their grunts with a full-auto M-16.

I was with the 82nd when they phased out the A1 (full-auto) and introduced the A2 (burst). We loved it. The overwhelming opinion at the time (and still my opinion today) was that "Full auto is for people that can't aim."

 

[Tigerclaw_x]

Correct me if I am wrong but...

Isn't the army getting an HK G36 rifle to replace M16s due to later's high maintenance? To me it seems the issue of cost. USMC is a bastard child of US navy, they never have enough money, so they are getting the Cheap-o design which is 50 years old, while the Army, not lacking the money getting a state of the art HK weapon. Fine german engineering, and, might I add, a gas piston operating system - yet another improvement on SVT rifle. It makes me so pissed off, that my countrymen never developed an SVT to a full potential, letting others copy it into an FN/FAL, AR-180B, SIG556, etc etc etc. And now even G36: short stroke gas piston, rotating locking bolt.
Germans copied SVT 40 back in 1943, and they are still copying it now. Makes me both proud of Russian engineering and sad that we chose the wrong path. Ideal rifle: SVT-40 system chambered for 6.5x55 or 6.8SPC

 

[buzz_knox]

Isn't the army getting an HK G36 rifle to replace M16s due to later's high maintenance?

No. The XM8 program died quite some time ago. The military found that it didn't offer any real advantages over the current "high maintenance" M16 platform.