but it generally only takes ONE to put-em down... less is more 8^)
Posted on 01/11/2006 7:09:45 PM PST by undocumentedrat
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Many in Congress and the Pentagon boast American troops have the best equipment in the world. But reports from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan say otherwise. The information about the failures is not new; solutions are long overdue. Some of the most worrying questions center on the efficacy and lethality of the firearms U.S. forces are using. Official reports show high levels of dissatisfaction with the M-4 carbine, M16 rifle magazines, and M249 machine gun. The small size of the 5.56mm bullet used in these weapons is also highly controversial among some troops. But problems with weaponry are just a subset of the larger issue: equipment that is not up to scratch. Reports from the Army`s Natick Soldier Center, its Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, and the Marine`s Systems Command Liaison Team in Iraq -- all from 2002 and 2003 -- tell us, for example, troops` 'dislikes.' Among those dislikes: uniforms that rip easily, eyewear that fogs up and fits poorly under helmets, and boots that blister, crack, and burst, and are 'poor for movement,' or as in one soldier`s e-mail are 'truly awful and also painful.' Troops buy some equipment with their own money, usually because government issue performs poorly. Such items include gloves, socks, flashlights, padding for backpacks, 'CamelBak' hydration systems, and weapons cleaning equipment. Banal items? Perhaps to us back home, but certainly not for soldiers fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan and the desert of Iraq, doing whatever it takes to keep their bodies and their weapons working. continue -> http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1074708.php
(Excerpt) Read more at news.monstersandcritics.com ...
Which means you can sneak around the desert with twice the ammo per soldier if need be.
But I doubt any change will occur during wartime.
Simple solution - replace the uppers and mags with 6.8 SPC ones. Replace the Humvee with the M113A2 as we used to use in the 70s.
If you were ever actually in a fire fight you wouldn't make such ignorant statements. The Israeli infantry actually use and prefer the FN FAL which is 7.62 mm and the UZI which is 9 mm. Lastly, OBL was never in a fire fight. He uses his weapon as a fashion accessory.
It doesn't matter what you equip our soldiers and Marines with ... it will never be enough. No rifle ever served our military that someone didn't piss and moan about ... it goes with the territory.
Yes you can carry more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62 ... but, if each soldier was a RIFLEMAN they would only need one or two rounds of 7.62 and not 10 rounds of 5.56.
Ramp up the M14 production lines!!!!! And bring back the M1 Garand as well ... infact bring back that "old stuff". John Browing was way ahead of his time.
Wounding an enemy depletes more enemy resources than killing them.
You consume ammunition much faster with an M-16 because you need 2-3 round bursts to have any affect so you need to carry more.
but it generally only takes ONE to put-em down... less is more 8^)
The .223 is 5.56mm x 45 mm the soviet version is 5.45x 39 and although it is more compact it has a fatter bottlenecked cartridge and has all the velocity of the .223 The actual bullet is much longer than the .223 and is a tumblin mofo when it strikes. I have AKS chambered for both and prefer the soviet round
Standard load of two full pouches and a full magazine in the rifle:
M-14 - 2 x 20-round mags per pouch and 1 in the piece = 100 rounds
M-16 - 3 x 30-round mags per pouch and 1 in the piece = 210 rounds
The lighter 5.56mm round was adopted for "spray and pray" jungle warfare where the ranges of the firefights was expected to be very close and volume of fire was more important than maximum range.
Also, a loaded M-14 weighs over 12 pounds, an M-16 about 7 1/2.
I have a 300 mag and now that's a kick ass rifle.
M Kehoe: I like these threads.
5.56mm: OK, you might like these threads, but I usually catch hell from all of the armchair warriors, and chickenhawks.
M Kehoe: Well guy, times do change, and we are fighting a different kind of war.
5.56mm: Sure, I know that, but I'd still like to kick some jihadi a$$.
M Kehoe: You and me both brother.
5.56mm
As a former Air Force puke (as we have been called)... I would rather have massive amounts of ammo to spray at an enemy we could not see performing base defense. But, then again, they only ammo I carried was stacking pallets for shipment!
But don't our guys carry more rounds if they are equipped with a 223?
The problem is not with the M-16,per se, but the application and use thereof.
The M-16 was designed as a "meeting engagement weapon", i.e. for a situation in which both sides might be surprised, at short range, and where the ability to spray bullets was typically the deciding factor. Unlike WWII Europe, Vietnam was not the place for a M-1 variant (M-14, although it did have it's uses). Vietnam did not afford open fields of fire. where the enemy could be spotted more easily and at longer ranges (over 100 yards). In urban combat in WWII and Korea, the best weapon was the submachine gun (the M-3 and Thompson were both chambered for .45, ask the Russians who survived Stalingrad how effective their PPsh's were). The M-16, with it's small round does not give our soldiers the benefits of the .30-06 or .45 in the open deserts and urban centers of Iraq, or the hills and mountains of Afghanistan.
It simply does not have the power or range necessary for these enviornments.
It is also a weapon with a very low tolerance for dirt, and the kind of dirt one finds in Iraq (powdery sand and dust) is hard to keep out of the weapon, no matter what precautions are taken. The M-16 always required a great deal of daily maintenace, and requires far more in this kind of enviornment. The numbers of misfires and jammings from Iraq is alarming, and most certainly due to a combination of poor maintenance and the enviornment in which our boys have to operate.
The M-16 was a great jungle weapon (when it was properly maintained and after the initial problems were fixed), but it cannot do the job in an urban, desert of mountain setting.
What we need is a different mix of weapons, I believe. Keep some M-16's (with M-203's attached), but in an urban enviornment, arm at least two members of each squad with a shotgun and an SMG (Uzi sounds good). Add another M-60 to the mix, as well.
When you go out into an enviornment like the Afghan mountains, at least two heavy rifles (7.62 sniper-types, I forget the designation), and an extra M-60 should go along. Keep a bunch of M-16s (again, with an M-203 attached).
Change the tactics and weapons to suit the terrain and conditions!
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.
