Soldier's .223 complaints

[jad0110]

First, I am not a soldier and have obviously never seen combat. But I would like to make one observation. Take it for what it is worth (perhaps not much).

7.62 may be bigger than 5.56 ... by a whopping 2.06 mm . Methinks shot placement is the most important factor, by far. If going bigger is the solution, why stop at just 7.62? Afterall, it is only 2mm larger in diameter.

Actually it has been that way since the Army adopted that pathetically weak 45/70 and the ammo wasting Trapdoor Springfield.

True.

 

[amprecon]

The mere diameter of a bullet does not fully determine it's effectiveness, the weight of the projectile is also a factor in it's calculation. It's shape also determines it's stability in flight and terminal performance. It is apparent whatever they're using needs more mass.

 

[MartinS]

GRIPPER,

This it?

http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html

 

[ArmySon]

I've read this thread with a lot of interest. I've been on 3 combat tours (currently on the 3rd) and I'm an 11B Platoon Sergeant. I think I know a thing or two about firearms and ballistics. Those that remember me from TFL and 1911forum can attest to that.

I do hear Soldiers complain daily. However, 9/10 times it's not about stopping power or needing a new cartridge. The most common complaints are:

• Not getting enough sleep.
• Going 60 days at a time without a refit.
• IOTV's getting heavier and heavier with every 'great' new addition Soldiers ‘need’
• Non Combat MOS'
• ACU's don't blend in with a damn thing
• 15 month deployments

Are those complaints petty? I guess it would depend which generation you're from. Regardles, the generation that is currently deploying and fighting the wars has a very different idea of sucking then generations of yesteryear. It is what it is and regardless of weapon, caliber, etc, we are going to continue to recruit and ship off Soldiers off to war. Say what you will but these young, generation X Soldiers but they do have to wear 60-80 lbs of armor, ammo etc for up to 72 hours straight in 120 degree heat while developing nasty rashes, prickly heat, etc. They've earned a little bit of right to complain.

There are those that have never enter/clear rooms, dismounted from a victor and running to the fights. Those same individuals make all the great decisions for us ground troops. They know what’s better for the Soldiers. They know what equipment we need. Yet, they never picked up a rifle and utilize it for its intended purposes.

The same applies to the support MOS’ that sit back at a big FOB all day reading gun mags, filling out surveys or attend SMA briefs. We’re out at combat outposts and during the down time, we sleep. Take those surveys and Soldiers' complaints for what it's worth.

 

[JR47]

Many times, people complain about their current circumstance. I'm also a combat vet, with four stars on the campaign ribbon.

Just to clear it up, the surveys run, asking about weapons, and there were several, all required that the troop have been in active combat, and used the weapons. Familiarization firing, or qualifying, was dis-counted. Many were SF from Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the government gets that right on occasion.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Many years ago, the Army had two young troops hike the Appalachian Trail, with standard field gear. Now, the Appalachian Trail is about 2,000 miles long, running from Georgia to Maine. So by the end of the hike, these lads had plenty of experience, and they liked the Army field gear.

I was an infantryman myself -- 22 years -- and put in two tours in Viet Nam and a bit more. And I have hiked the Appalachian Trail, and I saw the flaw in the test -- there was no competing gear! The troops only knew they had walked 2,000 miles with Army gear. They didn't test Army gear against any other gear.

And that's the case with troops in combat -- they know what they have, know how it works, but don't have a variety of different designs to test and compare.

 

[JR47]

The questionnaire on weapons was to find out opinions of issued gear. The M9 was panned, not so much due to caliber, but to magazine failures, and worn-out guns. You can only rebuild an aluminum framed gun so many times before the wear on the frame begins to interfere. Ask Vickers. Those soldiers who used a .45 ACP in issue weapons felt it superior to the 9x19.

The M16 was actually liked better as far as ammunition performance than the M4. The M4 scored higher in CQB, due to the ease of movement.

Those issued the M14, after receiving enough magazines and support gear, found it to be an improvement over the M16 in the DMR role. How much of that was subjective, and based on presumption is anyone's guess.

The M249 was a mixed bag, usually due to the age and wear on the issued weapon.

The M240 was considered too heavy for dis-mount use. The Product Improved M60, while in small supply, was liked over the M240 by SF forces.

I'm too old for formal combat today, and won't be visiting overseas any more on Uncle's dime. I'm not constrained by Hague or Geneva, or the UN, so I really have no dog in this fight. I will say that it seems that any adverse comment about the M16/M4 family is met with more opinion than fact today.

Face it, the veterans of past wars in which the United States was involved has less support, and many had more contact time than today. Their weapons were in more use, and the cleaning regimen was less intensive than today's. That says something about the current issue weapon. Even in WWII, in the desert, the M1 Garand, the M1 Thompson, and the M1 Carbine required less maintenance to function than the current rifle. Yes, there were failures, and they were noted and acted upon, not excused as the fault of the troops.

The British Sten, and Bren guns were also no strangers to the sand, and they required less maintenance to function. The FAL has it's bolt slotted to allow it to operate in such conditions. Yet, after 40+ years, our issue rifles are still less considerate of cleanliness. With our increasing use of Reserve and National Guard troops, the idea that maintenance is a personal, and leadership, failure is a poor one. It's an after the fact conclusion that does nothing to save lives or material. There has to be a better way, and a better design.