The US Military Has Been Using Substandard Firearms For Over A Century

[Cosmoline]

.30-06 as being underpowered, he said underloaded. Perhaps he was meaning that the size/length of the cartridge was not fully implemented; I have read in other threads his comparisons to the .30-06 and the .308, and he seems quite capable of digesting comparative data.

Exactly. If you're going to use the .30'06, you should use it to its full power. Otherwise what's the point of having such a long cartridge? If you're going to use it at 7.62 NATO power levels, why use it at all? Garand himself had the right idea as far as cartridges go.

 

[Cosmoline]

Of course, the greatest disservice we've done to our fighting men is refusing to reject the Hague Convention's absurd limits on bullet design. But that's another thread.

 

[Ash]

As to the question about cock on closing, such designs allow for better primary extraction than cock on opening. The force required for lifting the bolt on a COC rifle is less than an COO rifle. Now, the force required to slam the bolt forward is greater, but in battle, that isn't a problem. But a dirty chamber making it harder to open the bolt, compounded by the cocking action of the bolt, can be.

Keep in mind that COC and COO rifles are both plenty effective, but COC rifles do offer an advantage in battlefield conditions.

Ash

 

[GunGoBoom]

Whether or not he has the pics to prove it, but 23 hits on an Iraqi at appx 100yds, who then got up and ran... Put down with a .308 and the body recovered and checked.

Lol - oh yeah, 1 .308 round, like a thunderbolt from God, puts him down instantly of course, after 23 hits from that bb gun called the M4 just bounced off or went clean through with no damage.

Wait a sec....

K, back. Got my waders on now - it's getting pretty deep in here. (not saying that YOU are making stuff up - I am saying that somewhere along the line at the origin of that story, some1 used their imagination in a creative way). But I'll be happy to look at the pics or sworn affidavit should they ever materialize.

 

[KriegHund]

I dont see how thats humanly possible.

23 shots...even if fired from 23 people at the same exact time...hitting in the same exact place...i guess maybe then.

But 23 shots....hmmmm....thats 127.88mm approx of destruction, not counting expantion.

I think someone needs to work on their aim....

 

[jefnvk]

If you're going to use it at 7.62 NATO power levels, why use it at all?

Ummm...

Because the 7.62 NATO didn't exist until AFTER WWII?

Of course, the greatest disservice we've done to our fighting men is refusing to reject the Hague Convention's absurd limits on bullet design. But that's another thread.

Yep, never quite understood why we limit ourselves against using SP's, but turn around and come up with tumbling and fragmenting bnullets, just to say we are kinda sorta in compliance.

And I gotta call BS on the 23 5.56 v. 1 7.62, unless he was hit 20+ times in the arms

 

[Old NFO]

Numerous rounds embedded in harness, webbing, etc., plus extremity hits but none fatal!

Well jefnvk etal, had you READ my original comment completely, their aim was not perfect, as they were in the middle of a firefight- The takedown shot was by the team sniper I believe. And I will check to see if he has pictures.

I suppose all you experts always have 1 shot, 1 kill even in the middle of a firefight so this would have NEVER happened if you had been there...

This statement has been, and always will be, total BS. I really would like to know how this lie ever started. There is not ONE legit source which can justify this statement.

Blackrazor here is your justification-

International laws of war had developed during the 18th and 19th centuries included the Declaration of St. Petersburg; November 29 1868, which was referenced and expanded upon with the Hague Conventions of 1899
Quote- On the proposition of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia, an International Military Commission having assembled at St. Petersburg in order to examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain in times of war between civilized nations, and that Commission, having by common agreement fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity, the undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as follows:
Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forges of the enemy;
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;
That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The Hague Conventions of 1899 included Declaration III - Outlawing the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body

The main effect of the Convention of 1899 was to ban the use of certain types of modern technology in war: bombing from the air, chemical warfare, and hollow point bullets.

But since your expertise is Obviously greater than mine, I know this will not satisfy you...

 

[jefnvk]

Nope, missed your original post completely. I apoogize. Although I still find it kinda hard to believe that the webbing stopped the bullets.

 

[Old NFO]

Nope, missed your original post completely. I apoogize. Although I still find it kinda hard to believe that the webbing stopped the bullets.

Not a problem jefnvk, you have to remember, the older .223 rounds would fragment on just about anything, and deflected fairly easily. My info comes from a Retired SAS guy, so in the early '90's during the 1st go-round over there, they could have still been using the older ammo, either from a PPS shipment or from their own stocks. I personally have seen .223 deflected by twigs while trying to fire through a bush... Not a lot of fun OR accuracy

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Old NFO,

Just what do the 19th century resolutions of the Hague Convention have to do with the purpose of the .223/5.56 round? Are you seriously suggesting that this statement of political nonsense has any bearing on the designers and engineers behind the 5.56 military round? Hell, if anything, the 5.56 is less inline with the Hague convention than the 7.62, since it partially replicates hollow point terminal ballistics with a FMJ bullet.

Now a quote from Stoner, Garand, Browning, etc. would have some validity. These are the guys building the guns, these are the guys who decide what the rifle is supposed to do, not some group of ignorant politicians.

I suppose all you experts always have 1 shot, 1 kill even in the middle of a firefight so this would have NEVER happened if you had been there...

Damn straight. Unlike some rangers, I know which way the rounds point in the magazine.

Anyway, like I said, there is no hard, scientific evidence that the 5.56 is an inferior military round. Basically, it always comes down to unscientific speculation from some old guy who grew up on Garands and .45's, slamming the new smaller wonder rounds. Good thing no one from the revolutionary war is still around, or I'd have to listen to how the .54 caliber is the only way to go! :banghead:

Although I still find it kinda hard to believe that the webbing stopped the bullets.

Of course you find it hard to believe, it's impossible. If a 223 can go through both sides of a steel/kevlar helmet, it's going to go through webbing. If .223 can't go through web gear, hey, maybe we should start using web belts and fastex clips for armor! yeah, that's the ticket

I personally have seen .223 deflected by twigs while trying to fire through a bush...

While this statement is most likely true, it proves nothing about the armor or "webbing" piercing capabilities of .223.

 

[Ole-sailor]

What is a military rifle round supposed to do?

Gentlemen;

I agree with all of you! Some of our issue weapons could have been better and some did and still do a good job.

Got to ask each and every one of you if you have ever heard of the
5 to 1 quote?

In most armies of the world it takes 5 people to look after and support 1 wounded comrade! In the United States Military that ratio is closer to 7 to 1!

Of all the reasons already mentioned to convert to a 5.5mm the one it seems that everyone missed, is most obivious, it creates more enemy wounded than the '06 or the .308 ever did. Those bad boys outright killed!

Now this Ole-sailor was issued an M-1 when he entered the Navy! Up to a couple hundred long paces your butt was mine {off hand} on the ground it usually didn't much matter how far you were away; weather, jungle and what not got in the way.

When I first tried the M16 or CAR 15 as we called it, I thought it was Cute.
Cute until I unloaded it at a block wall about 50 or 60 yds away. Then I thought it was the uglist little weapon ever issued.

If you want them dead: call for an attack by your friendly Apachy or Spector gunship.

If you want them crawling away really hurt: shoot em with your M16

 

[Old NFO]

Well I'm glad you're such an expert Blackrazor- Guess I'll just shut up and go sit in the corner.

 

[BigG]

This statement has been, and always will be, total BS. I really would like to know how this lie ever started. There is not ONE legit source which can justify this statement.

Whether or not you believe the statement, or Old NFO's justification which he was kind enough to provide, and right on point I might add -- I was told the exact same BS as Old NFO in boot camp, as was my father and countless other soldiers. Takes 2 men to carry a wounded man, etc. Just the kind of logic that would appeal to some dingleberry bureaucrat back miles from the battlezone. YMMV

 

[Cosmoline]

In any case, it's pretty clear that today's enemy neither follows the Hague Convention nor worries much about wounded comrades. At most they give the guy a grenade to detonate when the US troops get close enough.

 

[Ole-sailor]

I assume that you know how many man a mash unit

The 5:1 is a total support not on the lines in a firefight.
And it really saps the support of the front lines.
You might go and read some of the horror stories of third world fighting where there is little or no support for wounded. If you need I can recommend some history lessons for you.

By the way how many purple hearts have been awarded to you. If any and you are still alive you might just know what I am talking about.

 

[Crosshair]

I think Cosmoline brings up some good points. But as alway's, I will now present by 5.56 bullet comparison photo.



Original Photo
It's not the bullet, it's the bullet type we are using. Or military needs to stop creaming itself over how much steel it will penitrate and focus on how well it does against tissue with barrier penitration as a secondary consern.

 

[Fatelvis]

We should go back to the Trapdoor.

 

[Stauble]

ok
the krag was a piece of crap compared to the other rifles that were available (the winchester would have made a better battle rifle)
the springfield was an excellent rifle though it is basically a copy of the Mauser.
the M-1 garand was the "greatest battle implement ever devised". if Patton said that then its good enough for me. The M-1 Garand was the only standard issue weapon issued during WWII ( the Russians did issue the Tokarev SVT-40, but it was never issued in the same numbers as the M-1 was) the the Axis Powers standard issue were all bolt action rifles. Sure the Germans had the StG-44 but we had Thompsons and BARs(in greater numbers too.)
The M-14 as you said was a bad rifle because it is nearly impossible to uses a 30-06 as a machine gun.
the M-16 is also crap. Though you can argue all day about the size of the bullet, in the end you never heard of a Commie dieing because his AK jammed on him, hell you dont hear about his SKS jamming on the him. Too bad our troops can't say the same about the M-16. Though the M-16 is argueably more accurate then the AK-47, as far as reliabilty and dependability go id trust the AK (or SKS) with my life over the M-16
all in all tho,
We're still the best in the world

 

[Stauble]

what about the 1911?
you cant tell me that thats a sub-standard firearm.

though you can make the arguement that beretta M-9 is if you want

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Now this Ole-sailor was issued an M-1 when he entered the Navy! Up to a couple hundred long paces your butt was mine {off hand} on the ground it usually didn't much matter how far you were away; weather, jungle and what not got in the way.... If you want them crawling away really hurt: shoot em with your M16

Well, I think this pretty much proves my theory about where all the speculation comes from.

in the end you never heard of a Commie dieing because his AK jammed on him

That's because the commies don't blame their failures on their equipment. And as far as the durability/reliability of the SKS, the range I used to shoot at wouldn't allow an SKS to be shot with more than 2 rounds in the magazine since the rifle would so frequently malfunction and fire full auto.

what about the 1911?

It may have been great in it's day (nearly 100 years ago), but nowadays I'll take high capacity handgun with a real, spring loaded extractor anyday over the Model T of handguns.

 

[Ole-sailor]

How many people have you shot with an M16

Speculation be damned, I have shot more than one enemy with an M 16 and they didn't like it. You know the old center of body mass training.

The Marines know this very well that's why they are shooting the Bad Boys in Iraq in the Head!!!

 

[FNFiveSeven]

huh?

 

[Cosmoline]

what about the 1911?

I didn't get into handguns, but I would never claim that the 1911 was substandard. It survived true torture tests and can operate under any conditions on the planet. It does not need to be stripped down daily to avoid malfunctions If we had armed our guys with Savage 99's and 1911's they would have been good to go through WWII.

The 92FS is OK. A friend of mine has one. But it will jam up from time to time and I don't like the ergonomics of it.

 

[Preacherman]

I think that the arguments about the usefulness/effectiveness/whatever of the M16/AR15 family of weapons are too often based on the 5.56mm. cartridge. Sure, this cartridge is a "varmint" round, but its performance against human targets is adequate, and I don't think it's out-of-place on the modern battlefield. Sure, the bullet is more easily deflected than a heavier caliber, and it doesn't have the same lethal range, but it's also made it possible for infantrymen to carry double the load of ammo that their forefathers carried, and ammo supply is a Good Thing in a combat zone. (How do I know this, you ask? Trust me. I know this.) The fact that many more rounds are fired than hits scored is a defect in training, not the ammunition or weapon.

My huge beef with the M16/AR15 is the utterly disastrous direct-impingement gas system, and the resultant compromises in bolt and buffer design. When the M16 was tested by South Africa in the 1970's, along with many other designs of modern assault rifle, it was junked after only a few days, because the combination of natural dust and dirt, allied with the gas being blown directly into the action, gummed it up very comprehensively. Given that our engagements could last several hours, there's no way that a weapon requiring as much cleaning as the M16 would ever be acceptable. South Africa's eventual choice was a locally-manufactured version of the Israeli Galil, which was in turn based on the AK-47 action as improved by Valmet of Finland. It was big and heavy, but utterly reliable - you could bury it in sand, drown it in mud, or drive a truck over it, and it would still function.

If you look at every assault rifle produced around the world since the 1960's, only the USA has bothered to go with direct gas impingement. All the rest - I repeat, ALL others - have opted for more reliable, less dirt-sensitive operating systems. There is a reason for this, and it's not the patents on the M16! Other countries know what works, and they've had combat experience out the wazoo - and they go with what works, not what was politically imposed upon them by the McNamara's and Johnson's of this world.

Let's be clear on this: the ONLY reason the M16 has remained the front-line rifle of US forces is the bureaucratic inertia resisting change by adopting another rifle system. The only other countries that use it (e.g. Israel, Taiwan, etc.) do so because they can get them at no cost through the US military aid system. It is, and remains, a thoroughly unsatisfactory piece of design. I do not trust the M16/AR15 as an adequate tool to which to entrust my life, and I never will. I've seen too many of them fail, even on firing ranges on Saturdays when they're cleaned, lubricated, and well maintained. The sooner the US army ditches this system and goes to something better, the happier I'll be.

 

[jefnvk]

I used to shoot at wouldn't allow an SKS to be shot with more than 2 rounds in the magazine since the rifle would so frequently malfunction and fire full auto.

Some genius forgot to clean the cosmo out of the bolt, is why. No fault of the gun's.