The Army needs more capability at range

[RicInOR]

22 caliber does not mean "22lr"

My point was missed.

The original article is making the exact opposite point soldiers have been making since the AR platform was selected for wide use in 1965.


If the 270 is too heavy then perhaps so is the current 22 issue ammo .... what weighs less and fits more rounds in the same space then the current NATO round of choice --> 22LR.

If that's still too much, 22 short might be in order.


What is the job of the average shooter? Suppress the enemy or effectively remove them from the battlefield?
Average type soldier: I was just here to get the GI Bill. I couldn't find no other job.




Here is a legit question, in the never ending war against terror, how many / what percent of our guys were shot directly from a rifle?
We always here about our guys being blown up by IEDs etc.
How about their guys?

 

[Savage Jav]

Use the right tool for the job.

When patrolling in a low valley/ravine, or defending/fighting from hilltop to hilltop; having an effective range of 500-600m isn't ideal when the enemy might be concealed at a further distance; employing a caliber possessing a longer effective range. -- IE. The enemy sitting 1000m above on a rocky crag shooting .303 British left over from a bygone era.

Fighting street-to-street/house-to-house involving breaching/clearing (AKA CQB) - where the enemy may be more visible; effective range may not be as important. Although, effective body-armor penetration might also be a consideration.

This may be where having modular weapon systems, and being well-trained on their functionality is practical.

But 6.8x51 doesn't penetrate body armor any better than 855A1.

At the end of the day its shot placement to the head, torso, or multiple rounds on target in rapid secession. All of which a lighter weight 556 rifle is suited for.

And unfortunately, we are trying to buy skill with gadgets. Money and resources are spent on a gigantic footprint of a scope that will supposedly do everything. Instead of giving Joe a red dot, acog, or LPVO and time on the range. Its the wrong attitude imho.

 

[ilostmypswrd]

The ability to shoot accurately is very important in combat.
However...
That ability suffers when one is :

Tried...
Being shot at...
In poor lighting conditions...
Wearing MOPP gear...
Engaging the enemy at different distances...
In bad weather...

Also worth considering is :

The enemy is doing his best to kill or stop you before you do the same to him...
Cover and concealment are also used by the enemy...a good clear shot is often not in the cards....
Contact with the enemy is best done when you want it to , on terrain and conditions of your choosing...
This doesn't happen as often as you would like....

Training should reflect the above.
Andy

Also being tired of being shot at as well huh Andy? lololol.

 

[Savage Jav]

Also being tired of being shot at as well huh Andy? lololol.

He forgot to mention the difficulty of seeing through black powder smoke after a shot

 

[Andy54Hawken]

He forgot to mention the difficulty of seeing through black powder smoke after a shot

Actually it ain't that difficult to see through the smoke...even with 15 - 20 odd shooters on the firing line.
Most of the time anyway....

In my experience...shooting black powder with an actual projectile makes for less smoke , than when shooting a parade load or a blank.
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Also being tired of being shot at as well huh Andy? lololol.

Yes , indeed.
That said...I may shoot better , just to end the fight quicker....
Andy

 

[titsonritz]

Yes , indeed.
That said...I may shoot better , just to end the fight quicker....
Andy

Helluva motivator.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Helluva motivator.

Posted here , only somewhat in jest :
Yes it was a motivator for sure.

I say somewhat in jest ...'cause it's been awhile since my last firefight...
So I can now afford some humor from my experiences....Whew...
Andy

 

[Ruger Rich]

I was drafted in Dec 65. In basic, at Ft Ord, rifle training was exclusively on the M14, which I grew to love.I had grown up
country and had some limited firearm advantage over a few other guys in the company. I thought rifle training was effective
and worthwhile. In my platoon I think all the guys did a pretty good job. After basic I did a years AIT at Ft Monmouth. Twice
in that year I spent a day each time with a rifle, again the M14. I got sent to Vietnam after Monmouth. I was assigned a
company and the CO was an old timer that loved the M14, I suspect he had some pull somewhere because the M14 was
being phased out at that time. I'm glad I was a young guy 'cause that M14 seemed heavy after a day of carting it around.
In retrospect, I can say that my true combat experience was primarily at night and that has turned out to be a fortunate
thing for me. I don't know if I killed one of them or not. I would return fire at muzzle flashes and then quickly move a few
yards away, thinking they would return fire at my flash. That conflict was not so idealistically motivated as the desert
engagements. In my quite time I would often think to myself, that guy out there that's trying to kill me, how different
is he from me? He has/had parents, perhaps a brother/sister, a girlfriend, a wife and finally, maybe a kid or two. Does
he want to die any more than I do? I knew I didn't want to die and would surely do anything in my power to remain
alive, including killing face to face. I'm just lucky it never happened.

 

[American123]

As a civilian my commentary can be taken as such, but I remember watching a documentary about US troops in Afganistan with a camera crew embedded into their patrol. They were in the mountains, and started taking fire from another ridge on a higher up peak. 30 cal rounds, machine gun fire, was raining down on them relatively accurately. They were firing back with their 5.56 using 4x acogs and couldn't effectively see enemy targets and it seemed like they couldn't effectively engage them at that distance either. I questioned the need to be walking around on that mountain anyway, it seemed like it was the method of letting the enemy engage on their terms.

In terms of a caliber that would have remedied that situation - air support or artillery barrage. It did seem like having a squad of entirely 5.56 firing rifles with small magnification would have been improved by having at least one "higher power" caliber rifle with higher magnification that would have been capable of responding and putting accurate fire on target.

No caliber will do everything well. I'd consult people involved in combat on a regular basis and see what they "want" in terms of a small arms cartridge, or how the squad is armed.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'd consult people involved in combat on a regular basis and see what they "want" in terms of a small arms cartridge, or how the squad is armed.

Well, duh! What they want is a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

 

[American123]

Well, duh! What they want is a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

Me too!

 

[Knobgoblin]

Westinghouse hasn't entered any military trials. Not yet...not for another 40 years.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The M-4 was a mistake, especially with the M-855 ammo. Unfortunately, the Ammo situation never really got solved. Hitting a Tango all cranked up on whatever, he just kept on going while you ice picked him with round after round. Never had any issues when the M-21 came out to play, those 165 grain bullets put them down and they rarely got back up! The other issue with the M-4 was range ( Lack of ) tangos would sit 500 meters away and lob 7.62 at ya all day long forcing you to ether close ranks on them, or switch to something meaner. I hated the M-4 for it's lack of range and stopping power. When I could, I always ran the 7.62X51, never once even noticing it's weight or the weight of it's ammo! My Kingdom for a 7.62! For some strange reason, we were absolutely FORBIDEN from obtaining AR-10's, we could choose from most of the available battle rifles out there, including the M-14/M-21, so that's what we did! Depending on where we were sent and which armory we drew from, the rifles could be G-3's FAL's, M-14's and such, and the M-4's stayed in the shipping crates!

 

[American123]

The M-4 was a mistake, especially with the M-855 ammo. Unfortunately, the Ammo situation never really got solved. Hitting a Tango all cranked up on whatever, he just kept on going while you ice picked him with round after round. Never had any issues when the M-21 came out to play, those 165 grain bullets put them down and they rarely got back up! The other issue with the M-4 was range ( Lack of ) tangos would sit 500 meters away and lob 7.62 at ya all day long forcing you to ether close ranks on them, or switch to something meaner. I hated the M-4 for it's lack of range and stopping power. When I could, I always ran the 7.62X51, never once even noticing it's weight or the weight of it's ammo! My Kingdom for a 7.62! For some strange reason, we were absolutely FORBIDEN from obtaining AR-10's, we could choose from most of the available battle rifles out there, including the M-14/M-21, so that's what we did! Depending on where we were sent and which armory we drew from, the rifles could be G-3's FAL's, M-14's and such, and the M-4's stayed in the shipping crates!

Your experience seems similar to what I was thinking, which was having some variety within a squad for cartridges could alleviate some of that issue. Not everyone would have to have the 5.56 carbine. I know weight is already an issue with how much gear is being carried, but if several are already carrying the "lots of lightweight ammo" 5.56 carbine, there could be a guy or two that had higher caliber options. For example - this may be silly, but I'm looking at a .270 bolt gun that isn't that heavy with some big glass on it. 40 rounds of that could go a long way as far as putting accurate fire on targets at distance that 5.56 starts to get less than ideal. If a semi auto in .308 is more appropriate, then that option instead, because I've heard your comment on jacked up tangos running and shooting despite taking multiple 5.56. A video interviewing some marines in Iraq shared the same sentiment about the back of the guys head being blown off and him still scrambling away, but .308 hits left people expired right there.

Edit: and hear's a thought. The new "whizz-bang" plastic cartridges that save a lot of weight could be applied to already fielded systems, making carried weight less, which typically correlates to higher combat effectiveness.

 

[coop44]

Also a big 762x51 fan, a battle rifle cartridge. The M14, while heavy and much maligned, still works. Having built and owned more than a few ar's I recognize they have their place in warfare, but as a long range rifle fails.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Don't get me wrong, the M-16/AR-15 is a great weapon, hamstrung by it's poor performing ammo! A better option would have been the original AR-10 running 7.62x51 and properly trained solders that learned to shoot properly! The spray and pray and thousand round load outs were stupid, and yet, our government continues to double down on stupid!

 

[coop44]

Years ago springfield offered the M1a in .243, I never shot one, but it always seemed like a good idea. Nice little flat shooter, good bullet weight, nice velocity. More importantly it has acceptable range. It's a pity but it doesn't seem to have been explored as a combat cartridge.

 

[bcp]

Remind me of golfers that keep buying higher priced clubs to make a better score, instead of practicing.

Bruce

 

[No_Regerts]

Years ago springfield offered the M1a in .243, I never shot one, but it always seemed like a good idea. Nice little flat shooter, good bullet weight, nice velocity. More importantly it has acceptable range. It's a pity but it doesn't seem to have been explored as a combat cartridge.

Barrel life would suck. Big time.