Posted on 04/21/2011 10:42:43 AM PDT by Winged Hussar
I definitely believe in peace through superior firepower. But, in the end, it isn’t how many weapons or how much ammo you’ve got, it’s how much of it you can put directly on the appropriate target when called for.
Army May Field More Powerful Sniper Rifle
http://www.military.com/news/article/army-may-field-more-powerful-sniper-rifle.html?ESRC=army-a.nl
(snip)- “But in a major shift brought on by experience in Afghanistan, the XM2010 is being built to fire the .300 Winchester Magnum round, which can hit targets up to 1,200 meters away. The current M24 — much the same as the civilian Remington Model 700 — fires a 7.62mm round that can reach targets about 800 meters away.”
FAL, one damn fine weapon.
Me too - 1964 actually. I grew up poor in the Appalachian Mountains in Northern Pennsylvania and started hunting as soon as I was big enough to keep both ends of the rifle off of the ground. I was given two or three rounds of ammo and got my butt whipped if I came home without either a piece of game for each shot or all the ammo I left home with.
My father taught me to know what I was shooting at and hit what I was shooting at. My kids have got those little .223 rifles and they use the "Spray & Pray" method. I still bring home more deer than they do by quite a bit.
Rifle marksmanship is a skill that takes time to develop and many rounds to maintain. The 1958 change recognized the changing nature of warfare and the threat/counter would primarily be armored formations rather than the M1A1 11B in small unit formations.
Today, we have come full circle and must recognize the fact in the same way the Navy did about air-to-air combat when they came up with Top Gun. You couple this fact with the stupid ROE that take away our technological and firepower superiority and you have returned to the M1A1 11B grunt needing pure skills as a rifleman. IMO, outside of designated marksmen and Special Forces, the basic infantryman will remain a low effectiveness platform for rifle fire because there is neither the time nor the money to elevate the skill levels across the board.
The 140 gr spitzer in the 6.5x55 smashes deer better than paper ballistics would indicate. Great BC/sectional density. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for elk with a Partition.
Aside from having heard of Wanut, I don’t know anything about Wanut, Afghanistan but if it was situated such that bad guys could fire down into it, no one should be surprised casualties were high.
The AAF know that within the 300m effective range of the M-16/M-4 that taking on U.S. soldiers is a loosing proposition.
The problem is that the 5.56x45 is only effective out to 300 meters.
Most combat happens at under 300m these days, and the average soldier is set up for that. We do have the squad “designated marksman” now, equipped to accurately take out people at 600m. Then we have snipers for past that up to 1.5 miles.
“His advice: If parents wanted their son to have the best chance to survive combat, see that he learns to shoot a rifle as a boy.”
Most significant passage, imo.
Notice how this talks of the Army and not the Marine Corps. I’m not trying to brag or bash the Army. However, the Army has always been trained since the end of WWII to fight the big European War with the Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap or large North Korean formations coming across the 38th parallel. The big battles with large formations and lots of armor. Looked at in this light, it makes sense that the Army did not rely on marksmanship.
The Marine Corps on the other hand has always been about “The Small Wars”. WWII to the Marine Corps was the abberation, not the norm. The Small Wars Manual was written by the Marine Corps in 1940 based on their experiences in the Bannana Wars of the first half of the 20th century. You can read it for free here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/swm/index.htm
Small wars as the article states needs good marksmanship. All Marines qualify at least once a year on the rifle range and the known distance course goes out to 500 yards. If you are an infantryman, you shoot a heck of a lot more than that. Plus, you fam fire all of the arms an infantry unit uses. Because of that, the Marine Corps is far better prepared to fight in Afghanistan than the Army.
One other thing I noticed is that the article talked of M-4’s jamming. Why are they using carbines in an environment where they are engaging the enemy at 500 - 1000 yards? That does not make sense. They should be using the M-16 A-4s...
Back in the late 1800’s it was common for military cartridges to be loaded with extremely long round nosed fmj bullets. For example the 6.5 Swedish Mauser came with a 160 grain bullet.That is why the twist is so fast.
I ordered one out of the back of a gun magazine when I was only 16. I also ordered several boxes of surplus ammo. Those bullets would shoot right through the thickest trees I could find.
The Germans came out with the pointed, lighter spitzer bullets which gave better ballistics and everyone else went along with them.
WDM Bell killed several thousand elephants using those long “parallel sided bullets” in such guns as the 6.5 Mannlicher. 6.5 Swede and 7mm Mauser. He said they penetrated better than anything.
I shoot 5.56 mm, 55 grain FMJ.
ALL Marines are riflemen first.
The rifle is a stock M-36 Calvary rifle, short barrel, tuned down bolt. I got it for $80 for a “truck gun” but it arrived “as new” so I didn't have the heart to sporterize it. Considering what they fetch these days, that was a good choice.
“should the zombies start climbing over the fence.
“
They can CLIMB??!! Crap! Gunna hafta get something a little more rapid fire.
We also developed a superb cartridge in the 70s known as the 6mm SAW. It was abandoned. Although I like shooting the .223 I don’t understand why they just didn’t select the .222 Rem Mag which was developed in the 50s as a military cartridge. Better ballistics and a long (reloader’s dream) neck that would suit longer heavier bullets.
I have no idea what it is but Swedish Mausers have a reputation for accuracy and in my experience they might even be better than their rep.
It might be that they spent a lot of effort on the barrels, maybe the ammo was good, maybe the actions were trued up. I just don’t know but every single one I have owned has been really accurate and I have never scoped one.
I once bought six at one time. Back when license fees were low, my next door neighbor was a dealer. He only sold enough to basically pay for the license. Anyway he ordered six for me and six for him.
They were in about the condition stated which was very good and were $60 each. I took them out to the gun club range and shot each of them. Every single one would do 2 inches at 100 yards but none of them would do an inch which was probably my fault. They were all sighted in the same way which is high at 100, probably right on at 300.
I have had the really short ones. and several of the 24 inch ones which I prefer, but the only one I still have is a 29 inch one. It is very good to excellent with an excellent bore. I can’t recall off hand what the brass disc says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.