Our Army's marksmanship has in fact regressed to 19th century standards (when Helmuth von Moltke wrote of "the problem of the last 300 meters," the problem coming from von Dreyse needle guns and their foreign counterparts, all of which used black powder cartridges). The result of course is that Afghans with Lee-Enfield rifles have an advantage over U.S. troops with M-16s, M-4s, or whatever they issue nowadays.
We can't blame Barry for this one, though, as the doctrine change took place in 1958.
How often is >100, 300, 500, or 1000 yards even an option?
Return to the 308, reach out and touch someone.
I really think we need to go ahead and change over to 6.5 Grendel. There may be better cartridges which will fit the M16 base but any time you can get 6.5 Swedish Mauser ballistics from an M16 then go for it.
There is actually nothing basically wrong with the .223. It just needs to be used in a gun optimized for performance instead of ease of carry.
I didn’t qualify on my personal weapon the last few years I was in the service because, “The Enlisted Soldiers need the ammunition so they can score higher and receive more promotion points.” That pretty well sums up the US military - We don’t give a sh_t about combat, we give a sh_t about the bureaucracy.
There’s Fire *and* there’s Maneuver.
I DO NOT know the circumstances of this firefight, nor do I know if it is representative of many.
But.
Lee-Enfields with iron sights probably did not account for many aimed hits at 1000 yards.
IIRC this firebase was very poorly located tactically. IIRC.
I am not sure I agree that the losses were firearm and marksmanship related.
Sure we need firearms that can reach out and touch in AOO-appropriate ways, AND we need troops trained to hit what they aim at. I can only say that my son (USMC) qualifies at quite long distances with iron and ACOG sights. I do not recall how far. I’ll have to ask him. They also *DO* practice with what he referred to as a 7.62 SAW that would really reach out and touch. He felt that this weapon, when supported, would almost enable him to snipe.
LASTLY, I do know the USMC puts a real emphasis on marksmanship. Can’t speak for US Army. I know my “Johnny” *CAN* shoot ;-)
I do pretty well with my Mosin at 300 m with iron sights. I can keep a relatively tight group at 500 m with a scoped hunting rifle. Past that, I get into problems with overcompensation for wind and bullet drop. I’ve never been formally trained, and have always wanted to study ballistic theory; however, I pray that if the SHTF in this country, most of the firing I would be doing would be sporadic and at clearly marked targets wearing light blue helmets.
http://www.appleseedinfo.org/search-states.html
Do it. Do it now. Military, up to and including special forces, have improved their marksmanship with Appleseed Project.
Go to the link, find the dates of events near you. Best experience you will have with a rifle. I am attending my second one Sat and Sun at Knob Creek, KY (next to Ft. Knox, S. of Louisville). And I have every intention of attending the other 4 planned for this year at the same location. And I will need them all, I'm afraid....
You will learn more about improving your marksmanship in two days there than 100 days by yourself at the range.
It's fun, inspiring and great for teenagers and women, also.
The 1903 has a magazine cutoff too.
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.”
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.
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...
ALL Marines are riflemen first.