Most US firefights shot out at less than 30 yards
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
280PLUS
Member
bushmaster offers collapsible stocks...
telescopic., i believe. might fit yours, other mfgs offer them too i believe.
that report gives me just one more reason to love my shorty...
telescopic., i believe. might fit yours, other mfgs offer them too i believe.
that report gives me just one more reason to love my shorty...
By the way, thanks for the info on the Marines in Afganistan. There has been so much going on for the last six months or so, that I have had a hard time keeping up with it. Between the vast amount of information and the inevitable news burnout, I just couldn't remember the details. The invasion of Afganistan seems like a long time ago for some reason.
gryphon
Member
I know thta i am in no means a military expert, and I have never served in the armed forces, but I think that my ideas have some interest non the less.
I would either go with one of 2 approaches.
1. Equip units with both the M16 and the M4. Or the equivalent of whatever they happen to be using at the time.
2. Train the troops in multiple weapons, then deploy them with the weapon they will need for their mission.
I would either go with one of 2 approaches.
1. Equip units with both the M16 and the M4. Or the equivalent of whatever they happen to be using at the time.
2. Train the troops in multiple weapons, then deploy them with the weapon they will need for their mission.
Well, this whole discussion about 20" vs. 14.5" has been discussed about as much as the .45 vs. 9mm or 1911 vs. Glock.
I personally am on the side that says we should be using the M4. If you need to shoot at 800 yards, call in artillary, call in mortor fire, call in an air stike, engage them with heavy weapons, whatever. It isn't that you can't hit someone at ranges like that, it is that few people can do it under battlefield conditions. This isn't from personal battlefield experience, but from watching fairly seasoned shooters fire at lessor ranges and miss; on a rifle range. Of course this whole idea would be much better if the designated marksman or squad level sniper was a part of it.
I personally am on the side that says we should be using the M4. If you need to shoot at 800 yards, call in artillary, call in mortor fire, call in an air stike, engage them with heavy weapons, whatever. It isn't that you can't hit someone at ranges like that, it is that few people can do it under battlefield conditions. This isn't from personal battlefield experience, but from watching fairly seasoned shooters fire at lessor ranges and miss; on a rifle range. Of course this whole idea would be much better if the designated marksman or squad level sniper was a part of it.
Blackhawk 6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 439
Gryphon,
Your idea is a good one. We refer to it as the "arms room concept" and use it for specialized weapon systems. For example, in some units the sniper teams have access to accurized M-16's, the M-24 SWS and the M-82A1 and use the arms room concept for the mission.
The problem with employing this concept with the general issue weapon, aside from the cost, is that conditions can often change rapidly on the battlefield. For example, I may conduct dismounted patrols in Afghanistan and select the M-16A2. How do I get my M-4 when I am forced to clear a cave complex or a village? I can not.
The answer, though not perfect, is to issue a rifle that handles the most common scenarios well. Not all, but most. I have carried both the M-16A2 and the M-4 during my career and, in my opinion, is the better weapon for the most commonly encountered situations.
Your idea is a good one. We refer to it as the "arms room concept" and use it for specialized weapon systems. For example, in some units the sniper teams have access to accurized M-16's, the M-24 SWS and the M-82A1 and use the arms room concept for the mission.
The problem with employing this concept with the general issue weapon, aside from the cost, is that conditions can often change rapidly on the battlefield. For example, I may conduct dismounted patrols in Afghanistan and select the M-16A2. How do I get my M-4 when I am forced to clear a cave complex or a village? I can not.
The answer, though not perfect, is to issue a rifle that handles the most common scenarios well. Not all, but most. I have carried both the M-16A2 and the M-4 during my career and, in my opinion, is the better weapon for the most commonly encountered situations.
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
I'm just wondering, someone said the 'L' word...where's Twoblink?
Andrew Wyatt
Member
that's not a bad idea.
as for the meusocs, they're basically custom pistols. there is no way that can issue one to everyone that needs a piece.
a kahr t9 would be the hot stuff for what they need a pistol for.
as for the meusocs, they're basically custom pistols. there is no way that can issue one to everyone that needs a piece.
a kahr t9 would be the hot stuff for what they need a pistol for.
DrDremel
Member
You are talking about fighting a military force that is not very motivated to fight that is past of a force that is less than half what is was when they lost. The reason the fighting was close is due to Iraqi soldiers waiting until they are cornered, can’t run any where or surprised. A motivated enemy will fight at longer distances. To issue a firearm with 100 yard terminal effectiveness because you had a fight where it was not needed while fighting a demoralized, forced army of ill-trained people that had to fight or their family would be sent to prison is not the best baseline. That is like saying that since you drove your car for the last week and never drove at night, it would be a good idea to take the lights off the car since you won’t need them most of the time anyway. I’ll bet there were more soldiers shooting at over 100 yards than there were soldiers that were shot in the ceramic plate. So it is good to have a ceramic plate that is only needed .01% of the time , yet to have a rifle that shoots further than 100 yards is not needed because it was only used at that distance 5% of the time? Maybe they should stop issuing snowshoes or skis to any soldiers since they were not used in the desert? Now for issuing a pistol to every soldier, shame on us for not doing that from the beginning. If the M16 is too long for indoor use, then issue a pistol with a large capacity magazine, say 15 rounds. That way it is big enough to use as an OFFENSIVE weapon. The HK MK23 pistol would be a great general issue handgun. It is big but not really any heavier than an M9. It uses a better round for use as a primary weapon.
why not just slap an m16 A4 upper on the M4 lower. good collapsable stock with a tried an true upper with an accesorie rail.
an whatever happened to front line soldiers having a shotgun available for room clearing?.
an i still dont understand why all soldiers are not even carrying a Pistol. especially in the Infantry? i carried a S.A.W an i definatley should have had one. even though it can be classified as a crew served weapon most of the time i was on my own. thankfully good maint kept it runnin well but there were always the other gunners who swore what crap it was. a BUG M9 sure would be peace of mind an cheap insurance in a trench or building.
an whatever happened to front line soldiers having a shotgun available for room clearing?.
an i still dont understand why all soldiers are not even carrying a Pistol. especially in the Infantry? i carried a S.A.W an i definatley should have had one. even though it can be classified as a crew served weapon most of the time i was on my own. thankfully good maint kept it runnin well but there were always the other gunners who swore what crap it was. a BUG M9 sure would be peace of mind an cheap insurance in a trench or building.
Nightcrawler
Member
Actually, quite a few shotguns saw service in the Iraq War.
As for M16s being too long...I don't think so. A typical combat shotgun with an 18-20" barrel (giving it a magazine tube capacity of seven to eight rounds) is the same length (40") overall, abouts, as the M16.
However, I can see how the longer A2 stock would be a bear with thick body armor. The shorter length of pull, as well as the lighter barrel, are two reasons I like the A1 better. I think the A2 is heavier than a 5.56mm rifle needs to be. The heavy barrel might be useful for extended automatic fire, but the M16A2 isn't full auto anyway.
If they insist on sticking with the M16, my choice would be a 20" lightweight barrel (perhaps a little heavier than the A1, but no moreso than the A2), semiauto only, with a stock that has an adjustable length of pull but is sturdier than the CAR collapsing ones.
As for M16s being too long...I don't think so. A typical combat shotgun with an 18-20" barrel (giving it a magazine tube capacity of seven to eight rounds) is the same length (40") overall, abouts, as the M16.
However, I can see how the longer A2 stock would be a bear with thick body armor. The shorter length of pull, as well as the lighter barrel, are two reasons I like the A1 better. I think the A2 is heavier than a 5.56mm rifle needs to be. The heavy barrel might be useful for extended automatic fire, but the M16A2 isn't full auto anyway.
If they insist on sticking with the M16, my choice would be a 20" lightweight barrel (perhaps a little heavier than the A1, but no moreso than the A2), semiauto only, with a stock that has an adjustable length of pull but is sturdier than the CAR collapsing ones.
carrying to much crap already. why add somethin else.
new invention. the variable barrel! the adjustable length barrel.
i still like the post on bullpup designs. the isrealis got a bad a$$ one that uses the 5.56 an AR/M-16 mag. an you can slap all the crap on it that you could an M-4
new invention. the variable barrel! the adjustable length barrel.
i still like the post on bullpup designs. the isrealis got a bad a$$ one that uses the 5.56 an AR/M-16 mag. an you can slap all the crap on it that you could an M-4
Penforhire
Member
I like the moonclip DA revolver concept someone floated earlier. How wild would it be chambered for 5.56? Too big? Well, then the original 9 mm suggestion was good.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
bullpup rifles are a really great way to get yourself killed.
1. you can't shoot them left or right handed without switching parts around.
2. if everyone in the swuad has a right handed weapon, they'll have to shoot right handed, ergo, it takes forever to respond to threats from the right on patrol.
3. bullpups have bad triggers.
1. you can't shoot them left or right handed without switching parts around.
2. if everyone in the swuad has a right handed weapon, they'll have to shoot right handed, ergo, it takes forever to respond to threats from the right on patrol.
3. bullpups have bad triggers.
that can be said for anything
True! but so is the M-4/M-16 currently used. they do have brass deflectors. being left handed i just adapt an overcome.
you mean left?
along those lines comes a good team/squad leader for proper placement of troops. once again adapt an overcome.... most crew served an full auto weapons eject from the right of the weapon. so there is that problem too. situational awareness deals with this as well as lotsa lotsa lotsa training
inherently so! more moving parts
Nightcrawler
Member
FN made a bullpup that ejects forward, the FN2000. Friendly to lefties like me. Has various integrally fitting accessories, such as an optical sight and a grenade launcher.
As for the bad triggers....I'm sure they could make one with a decent trigger if they tried. But a match trigger isn't necessary on a military weapon.
As for the bad triggers....I'm sure they could make one with a decent trigger if they tried. But a match trigger isn't necessary on a military weapon.
Bullpup fan here.
You can fire a BP with your left hand around a barricade, but you can't get into a traditional cheek weld position. So it is only good out to a limited range, but you can still put rounds on target. Hold PG in left hand, mount on shoulder, angle away from body, right hand grasps magazine or mag housing.
Even then, it is pretty rare for people to switch shoulders with their regular long guns. Most people haven't trained for it, don't do it as well, and just contort themselves around their cover to return fire with their right shoulder. Also if somebody is using a tac sling, this will often make it impossible to shoot from your left shoulder anyway without undoing the sling.
Trigger pull is entirely up to the design. You won't ever have a crisp target trigger, but you can get a trigger that is equal to most military rifles. The Tavor I tried had a decent trigger pull.
The FN 2000 does eject forward. One of the Russian guns that competed in the Abakan project also had forward ejection, and that was over 10 years ago. (basically the shell is lifted during extraction, and then shoved out the front when the bolt returns)
You can fire a BP with your left hand around a barricade, but you can't get into a traditional cheek weld position. So it is only good out to a limited range, but you can still put rounds on target. Hold PG in left hand, mount on shoulder, angle away from body, right hand grasps magazine or mag housing.
Even then, it is pretty rare for people to switch shoulders with their regular long guns. Most people haven't trained for it, don't do it as well, and just contort themselves around their cover to return fire with their right shoulder. Also if somebody is using a tac sling, this will often make it impossible to shoot from your left shoulder anyway without undoing the sling.
Trigger pull is entirely up to the design. You won't ever have a crisp target trigger, but you can get a trigger that is equal to most military rifles. The Tavor I tried had a decent trigger pull.
The FN 2000 does eject forward. One of the Russian guns that competed in the Abakan project also had forward ejection, and that was over 10 years ago. (basically the shell is lifted during extraction, and then shoved out the front when the bolt returns)
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I'm left handed. this means that if i were to join an army with bullpup guns i'd be screwed.
when a left handed guy carries a rifle, the muzzle naturally points right. when he has to engauge something to the right, the muzzle is already pointing in the general direction.
when a left handed person has to engauge something on his left side, things get difficult. he has to switch his foot position and rotate entire body around. this is more pronounced with bullpups, because of their ergonomics. in addition to the everybody having their guns pointed the same way issue.
I've been present at local field rifle events that included targets popping up out of the brush at close distances, and the people with bullpups had a harder time getting their guns swung around, and the all right handed and all left handed teams had harder times engauging targets from their right or left, respectively, for the reasons outlined above.
when i shoot an m4, i don't have an ejection port next to my carotid artery, thankyouverymuch.
when a left handed guy carries a rifle, the muzzle naturally points right. when he has to engauge something to the right, the muzzle is already pointing in the general direction.
when a left handed person has to engauge something on his left side, things get difficult. he has to switch his foot position and rotate entire body around. this is more pronounced with bullpups, because of their ergonomics. in addition to the everybody having their guns pointed the same way issue.
I've been present at local field rifle events that included targets popping up out of the brush at close distances, and the people with bullpups had a harder time getting their guns swung around, and the all right handed and all left handed teams had harder times engauging targets from their right or left, respectively, for the reasons outlined above.
when i shoot an m4, i don't have an ejection port next to my carotid artery, thankyouverymuch.
Nightcrawler
Member
I am too. Virtually every military bullpup can be converted for a lefty. The AUG requires a new bolt, but the Tavor and the FA MAS can just be reversed, AFAIK. No fuss, no muss, no special parts needed.
Unsure about the Enfield/HK SA-80 (L85A1/A2) the Brits are using.
But a design like the FN 2000 (or their P90 bullpup SMG, which ejects downward) solves that problem nicely.
Tavor is the Isreali Bullpup right! think i saw that at a show....
your right on that!!
however im gonna guess were not ever in the service. at least not a line company.
you dont walk a straight line heading do north so to speak. you constantly scan an turn your body. facing all angles. taking in all your surroundings.
course i really cant argure the hot brass in the charotid though
your right on that!!
however im gonna guess were not ever in the service. at least not a line company.
you dont walk a straight line heading do north so to speak. you constantly scan an turn your body. facing all angles. taking in all your surroundings.
course i really cant argure the hot brass in the charotid though
- Status
