Posted on 11/15/2005 2:32:39 AM PST by holymoly
November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army’s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else. While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for day and night use. It’s much more effective to fire less often, if you have troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first shot. Most American troops can.
Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.
In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back. There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
The other big complaint about the M16 is it’s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the “dust sensitivity” problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.
A decision on the army’s new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a lot of Internet noise over the issue.
How about a .257 Weatherby Magnum? It is very fast, yet powerful enough for big game hunting. For sniping, at 500 yards a 120 grainer maintains a velocity of 2141 fps.
http://www.weatherby.com/products/ammo.asp?prd_id=3
The engineer in me is screaming out.
That the M16 does what it was designed to do and doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do, should not come as a surprise.
Just as the old saying goes, don't take a knife to a gunfight; one doesn't take ammo/rifle designed to wound/disable people and expect it to do a good job at anti-material targets.
For checkpoints & road blocks, an M-2 in 50BMG is appropriate to stop a large truck. A 5.56 M14 or a 9mm pistol should not be expected to stop a truck or car. They weren't designed to do that. A 50 BMG was designed to stop a truck/airplane or blast through a wall.
People got to understand that you shouldn't expect to be able to drive nails with a flyswatter. Use the right tool for the right job. If the military commanders aren't smart enough to issue the right gear for troops to do their intended jobs, then court marshal the commanders.
What was I thinking the M14 was the .308 rifle. I meant M16 in the next to last paragraph.
Look for "Gyrojet" pistols and rifles. There are a LOT of problems with rocket-based firearms, some of which are a physics limitation.
The G11 was never put into production because of the very quick wear of the rotary bold mechanism that fed the ammo to the breach. This rotary bolt also jammed very easily, and once jammed, was very hard to clear.
7.62x51: FN-FAL (lots and lots and lots of these around), AR-10, Steyr AUG (expensive), modernized M14s and clones (except for the Norinco/PolyTechs), Galil, H&K G3 or 91 (later development of FN-FAL type).
Most of the M14 types are available with stainless barrels and actions, as well as synthetic stocks. 7.62 is also ideal for ventilating hulls and letting water in. That said, pirates have reportedly taken to using "unsinkable" types like Boston Whalers. In that case, 7.62 will quite happily penetrate the foam-filled hull and damage engines and fuel tanks.
Roger the lighter weight,
Negative on the lighter weight as a major reason. The small stature of the Vietnamese made shooting the M-14 in.308 (7.65x53) torture. They tended to point and close their eyes with the M-14, rather than aim. The light weight of the "16" was a plus for the Asians, as well as drafted city boys with little to zip firearms experience. The .223 round of the "16" is a varmint round. I knew that the day I was handed an early M-16 in basic combat training in 1967. After having shot my dad's hunting rifles, I knew I was under-gunned with the M-16. And so I was. And so were many of us. It's time to get rid of the M-16 and its variants, with its itty-bitty-bullet, and equip our troops with a modern .30 caliber combat weapon.
Thank you. M14 in stainless or FN FAL sound good to me, I'm not as familiar with the others. I hear more compliments on this board for the M14 than any other weapon, I think.
If they really want to get the best use of the 7.62, they should tool the new weapons so that they fit ammunition currently being used by the jihadists. Cuts down on the need to resupply ammo when you can take it from your dead enemies and use it against them. Simple process really and we can also tool the weapons so that it will take 2 different types of ammo, ours and theirs. Do this so that they cannot use OUR ammo and you've got a win win situation.
What is wrong with those? Are they POS?
If the truth be known about the origin of the M16, I think you'd have to take a close look at the SOB that forced that POS on our combat troops in Vietnam. Robert Mcnamara pushed that Mattel toy and it was responsible, directly, for alot of troops being wounded or worse when it jammed up.
Indirectly, Mcnamara should be held responsible for the injuries and deaths of those young men.
I had an HK91 that the Bn. armory lugged around for me when I was in 3/4 (82-84) and as M60 NCO for comm. plt. 7.62 was plentiful. they don' do that anymore, alas. But in gulf war 1 - I had an M60 again :) .
They're Chinese copies that have a distressing tendency to explode. The only good thing about them is their forged receivers, and that's it. The rest is trash.
This round (.257 WM), as well as the .30-'06, suffers from the same problem; they are too long for advanced semi-automatic rifles at 63mm case length. The reason the M-14 was in .308 was it had a case 51mm long. The shorter the round, the higher the feeding reliability and the shorter the bolt travel. Shorter bolt travel, in an auto or semi-auto, enhances ejection and reliability and improves cyclic rate.
The new Winchester "Short Magnums" in less than magnum powers would be an avenue to investigate. Magnum recoil and ballistics for a combat rifle, open field or urban combat, are not desirable.
I actually had an M16 in Vietnam that was made by Mattel.
I love gun threads. FReepers have this subject locked and loaded.
Great post!!
I was an 11B20P in combat. When it got ugly the command was "Drop your packs. Weapons and ammo only" anyway.
The whole deal with carrying massive amounts of ammo is based upon the old straight leg infantry in which you have to walk into battle carrying everything you need for the next 3 days. Today most actions are patrol based and never far from resupply and reinforcement. Given the choice I would prefer more stopping power.
Thanks for the link. The blogger's G-2 pretty much says it all.
Hmmm. I have seen them and they look OK. Never knew anyone who had one.
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.