Posted on 04/07/2017 7:37:17 AM PDT by C19fan
On the heels of the Marine Corps' desire for a new rifle for its infantrymen, the U.S. Army now says it is contemplating a dramatic switch in rifles. The service is considering going back to battle rifles—heavier rifles that can hit targets at longer ranges. The last time the Army fielded such a rifle was in the 1960s.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
“Tracking Point has a remote viewing option - just hold the rifle up (1 hand and arm exposed, that’s it, if the gun is on a sandbag or other stable rest), aim the shot on your cell phone”
The added benefit is you can call your mom from the foxhole to say hi.
Chainmail wrote: “And your combat experience is what..? I have engaged the enemy at 600M and it even hit one guy at that range with an M-14. They tend to not believe that you can hit that far and make the mistake of being exposed.”
I’m not disputing your USMC marksmanship training or your skills at long range shooting. I am questioning how frequently you’ll get the opportunity to have a clear cut shot at an enemy rifleman at 700 meters.
After a couple of guys get hit, the rest will be more careful and won’t make the mistake of failing to practice proper concealment. And,you’ll have very few opportunities to prove your marksmanship.
If the opportunities for long range shooting are limited,
then a limited number of marksmen with long range weapons (M-14) is sufficient.
Have you read “Men Against Fire”?
“Should that be a recommendation for infantry combat? Sorry but being a Security Policeman in a clean, sheltered environment is not quite like extended combat in the villes, treelines, and paddies we lived and fought in.
And “carrying more ammo” but blitzing it away in the brush is also not the same as killing anything - more of a noisemaker.”
If You have an argument with the Army’s Procurement of the M-16 take that up with the Generals of the Army Procurement Dept.There the ones that selected the weapon I didn’t.
By the way I didn’t insult your service in the U.S. Army so why do I detect that your insulting myself as well as others who served in the U.S.AirForce Security Police/Security Forces?
I’m sure a lot of our Security Police guarding the bases in Vietnam and Laos would laugh out loud that they were in a clean sheltered environment.
You maybe right that the M-16 was not a good weapon for use in an environment like you served in during the Vietnam war.Don’t blame me or the Air Force Security Police.Blame the Army Generals who saw something in that weapon that they liked at the time prior to procuring the weapon.
By the way,Thank You for your Service in the U.S.Army.
“By the way,Thank You for your Service in the U.S.Army”
Sorry About that error but Thank you for Your Service in the U.S. Marines.
I’m not disputing your USMC marksmanship training or your skills at long range shooting. I am questioning how frequently you’ll get the opportunity to have a clear cut shot at an enemy rifleman at 700 meters.
After a couple of guys get hit, the rest will be more careful and won’t make the mistake of failing to practice proper concealment. And,you’ll have very few opportunities to prove your marksmanship.
If the opportunities for long range shooting are limited,
then a limited number of marksmen with long range weapons (M-14) is sufficient.
Have you read “Men Against Fire”?
On the other hand, if the enemy knows you are equipped with an M-4 carbine with a practice effective range of about 500 yards and they are equipped with the Russian 7.62x54R with a range of about 1000 yds they can ambush you from 1000 yes out with little fear of your return fire.
A properly executed ambush can take down a lot of men in less than 10 seconds so they don't need to expose themselves for very long.
I like the idea of the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC in Bull-Pup config....
Yes - required reading for new Marine officers. S.L.A Marshall describes data based on after action studies and the actions of men in those situations.
We used to refer to three groups - "killers", "Fillers", and "Fodder". Killers are the 10-20% of the troops who actually aim their weapons carefully during the mayhem of a firefight. They are the really effective members of the team and the more of them that you have, the better you'll do.
Fillers fire their weapons during the firefights but it's best to be behind them, since they are really just making noise. Usually new guys and if they survive, they may graduate to Killer.
Fodder's going to die no matter what you do. They smoke at night, stand up on the skyline, open gates, face the wrong way, pick up stuff they shouldn't. Better to be away from them lest they take you with them.
If everyone learns how to shoot effectively and they have a rifle that supports long-distance shooting, then your odds of having the right capability in the right place at the right time improve.
The man you shoot at 500m learns - permanently - not to expose himself while Marines are within that range. The turnover of the enemy in our neck of the woods was such that many more got to learn that lesson.
We - grunts - were out in very filthy, hot, wet conditions for weeks at a time - and sometimes longer. We were also in very large and prolonged firefights. The weapons we had, had to function in really brutal conditions and our M16s failed very often.
I do blame the senior Army officers and senior Marines too for that debacle. It cost a lot of good men.
Too funny!
I read “Men Against Fire” while at the Infantry Officers Basic Course back in 1971.
BTW, speaking of noise, Erwin Rommel issued a General Order when he was CG 7th Panzer that in the event a column encountered an enemy while advancing, every one in the column were to fire their weapons as rapidly as possible even if that meant they could only fire their weapons into the air. He explained that it was his experience that in meeting engagements, the side that made the most noise usually won.
Most think of Rommel as a tank commander but his greatest exploits were as an infantry commander in WW1. His book chronically his exploits “Infantry Attacks” brought him to the attention of Hitler.
I read “Men Against Fire” while at the Infantry Officers Basic Course back in 1971.
BTW, speaking of noise, Erwin Rommel issued a General Order when he was CG 7th Panzer that in the event a column encountered an enemy while advancing, every one in the column were to fire their weapons as rapidly as possible even if that meant they could only fire their weapons into the air. He explained that it was his experience that in meeting engagements, the side that made the most noise usually won.
Most think of Rommel as a tank commander but his greatest exploits were as an infantry commander in WW1. His book chronically his exploits “Infantry Attacks” brought him to the attention of Hitler.
“The added benefit is you can call your mom from the foxhole to say hi.”
That’s awesome. And your wife and girlfriend too!
5.56mm
On the new rifle, the commercial brass had swollen into the flutes of the chamber. I had to punch the brass out with a cleaning rod. CETMES roller lock like an HK, and the flutes let the gas by to help open the action.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/04/30/beware-commercial-308-fluted-chambers/
Interesting. Back in the 1930s, when what would eventually become the "US Rifle Caliber .30 M1" was being developed and tested, they played around with a .276 cartridge. It was ditched in favor of .30 cal due to huge stocks of ammo left over from The Great War.
The long distance stuff happened when the enemy opened up on us from an opposite treeline. You'd look for muzzle flashes or the dust coming up from their muzzles, a little movement or if they were really stupid, tracers. Once you had them, they were as a good as gone.
Great minds . . . :-)
(Ducking)
Finally gave up myself and put some optics on the M1A last month. Used to be able to pick up a target at 500 yards but not so much n'more. Got the Springfield official mount and then the fun began.
In any sane gun you bolt the mount on and that's it. Not so fast! You know you're dealing with a battle rifle when: well, first you knock the pin out of the stripper clip guide and remove it altogether. (WHAT? The M1A doesn't have a stripper clip guide...oh...that's what that thing is...) Knocked the pin out and it fled downstairs for a romantic assignation with the missing socks the dryer ate...
Epic installation instructions. So, yeah, you screw the mount on. Tight. Then you hit it with a hammer (WHAT?). Yeah, a hammer, and then you tighten it some more and hit it some more and when you can't tighten it anymore after you hit it, you're done. I think that's why they call them "armorers" instead of "gunsmiths" but what the hell do I know.
So I got these fancy-dan cantilever rings that look like something out of Starship Trooper and on goes the Nikon. I take a nice cheek-weld and whaddaya know? I can use the irons through the base of the mount. Nice. Only...
Only the scope is about three inches above the bore axis, and if you're not a giraffe or have a third eye growing on a stalk from the top of yer head, it's sort of tough to see through the glass. Dang it. Great carry handle, not so good to actually, oh, I don't know, LOOK THROUGH?!?
Tore it off and put on a set of low-rise mounts and life is good. Range is still in snow but I can't wait to take it out. Soft shooter, built like a tank. If, God help us, I ever had to hit the weeds to defend against the invading Muslim hordes from Alberta (Muslim hockey fans, that's the worst kind), that'd be the gun I'd want with me.
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.