Substandard Issue: Why can't the military give good guns to our troops?

Field & Stream Magazine ^ | 3/9/06 | David E. Petzal

[kiriath_jearim]

Substandard Issue: Why can't the military give good guns to our troops?

And while we’re on the subject of military rifles, it’s worth mentioning that the U.S. has less than a terrific record on equipping our troops with the latest and best. Consider:

The Union Army fought the Civil War with single-shot muzzle-loaders, despite the fact that practical breechloading repeaters were available for almost all of that period.

After the war, the Army went with the single-shot Model 1873 .45/70 Springfield, despite the demonstrated superiority of repeaters. General Custer could tell you about this.

We stayed with the Model 1873 right up until the Spanish American War in 1898, when we met up with the Mauser, firing smokeless powder. Ooops. Our mistake. Despite the availability of the Mauser, we replaced the Model 1873s with a strange Danish bolt-action called the Krag-Jorgensen. It lasted all of ten years or so. We fought World War I with the Springfield Model 1903, a great rifle, and a flagrant copy of the Mauser. Mauser sued the U.S. Government for patent infringement and won.

For the first year of World War II we got by with the Springfield. Then M-1s got to the troops. It was the best rifle of the war for two years until the Germans came up with the MP43—the first assault rifle. Korea was fought with World War II surplus.

In 1963, the Army began issuing the M-14, an improved (?) M-1. it was obsolete the day it was first issued. The M-16 was our weapon of choice for our excellent adventure in Southeast Asia. Its introduction was a disaster, due to: a) the Army’s alteration of the inventor’s design; b) the use of ball powder instead of the original extruded powder; and c) no cleaning equipment was issued with the rifle, despite the fact that it required frequent and careful cleaning.

Despite this, the M-16 has had a 40-year run as our standard infantry weapon, having been tortured into an acceptable state. Why, however, are we still using it, considering that all our other Vietnam-era equipment, from helmets to jet fighters, is stone age compared to what he have today?

[tigtog]

Hey I do rifles for the Marine Corps for a living. The F&S guy is off his rocker. No matter what rifle we adopt there is always, and I mean always, a group that is dissatisfied with the selection. Currently, we are considering changing the standard ammo caliber from 5.56mm to 6.8mm or 6.5mm. The reason for the change is increased lethality against thin chested targets. The reason we are having problems with lethality at short ranges was due to the attempt to make the 5.56mm more accurate and lethal at extended ranges for marksmanship and more importantly for use with machineguns. We indeed increased the range and lethality by making the bullet heavier and boosting the propellant but lost lethality (tumbling - wound channel) at short ranges. This was demonstrated in Faluejah, with Marines complaining that they were shooting bad guys 7 to 9 times before they stopped fighting. They also expressed the same complaint with the 9mm pistol. Based on these results all services are changing back to the .45 ACP and are actively looking at 6.8 and 6.5mm ammunitions. The M-16 itself is very reliable. The ammo it shoots is questionable at short ranges. We are currently testing a possible replacement rifle with SOCOM, the SCAR. For a combat rifle, the first order of business is reliability, then accuracy. Remember, most infantry combat occurs within 200 meters and for urban combat it is at ranges of 50 meters and in.

[NYleatherneck]

what is that ?

[quadrant]

I hated carrying the M-14 because of its weight and the weight of the ammo when I was at boot camp at PI and at Camp Geiger, but the weapon was reliable and accurate.

[brainstem223]

The hide bound nature of military procurement for the past two centuries is the cause of the complaints you mention.

All nations throughout history have armed troops with crappy weapons at one time or another.

The M1 was state of the art for the WWII period when it was fielded with great effect. Same for the M1 carbine. Both over-matched the axis enemies WWI ear bolt actions designs.

The M14 was not obsolete in the late 1950's when it was introduced, the other competing design, the FAL, of the era has no particular advantage over it; except for the latter's adjustable gas system.

The M16's intro was rocky due to the marked departure of the design from previous rifles. The 22 caliber is too small for desert/mountain warfare where longer range shots are more the norm than jungle fighting where the M16 came on the scene. I think 6.5-6.8 mm is the ideal all around caliber, splitting the difference between 5.56 and 7.62. There are 6.8 weapons in the field built on the M16 chassis, and that round is successful, fits into a M-16 mag but limits the capacity, a gun designed around the 6.8 will remedy the capacity deficiency.

[308MBR]

The M-14 is an excellent unit, and my personal choice.

[JWAVILA]

You guys and gals should read Soldier of Fortune some, if you dont already. They have very good articles regarding weapons being used by our troops. And the changes being thought of for the future.

[xarmydog]

^6 years in the Infantry and my m-16 never let me down.It was an over used weapon when I got it.But I kept it cleaner than my undies!

[brainstem223]

Way to ugly looking, gives me eye cramps just to look at it and you need to be a contortionist to shoot it.

[antiRepublicrat]

FN P90. Shoots 5.7 x 28 mm rounds, smaller than a rifle but capable of penetrating level 3 body armor at 200 meters. Maximum effective range is listed at 400 meters, but that's iffy. It's really best at under 200 meters, but that's where most combat happens anyway.

The 50-round clip sits on top of the barrel, easily showing how much ammo there is left. It fires 900 rpm and can remain controllable and on-target the entire time due to low recoil. A group of less than 10 inches is possible at 50 meters when blowing the whole magazine on full auto.

It weighs only 5.9 lb with an empty magazine, the 50 rounds adds only about 11 ounces. It also ejects downward.

The main drawback is stopping power with the small bullets, but IMHO a quick controllable burst of 10 should solve that problem.

[antiRepublicrat]

I like this picture.

Looks pretty easy to hold and shoot. And I wouldn't care how it looks as long as I know I can easily spray down a room going house-to-house.

[antiRepublicrat]

Oh yeah, it's also 100% ambidextrous, so all you lefties who hate where the selector and magazine release are on the M16 wouldn't have to worry anymore.

[tigtog]

You'll shoot your eye out.

[brainstem223]

The 9mm was chosen for political reasons to correspond with what the Europeans were using. Dumb choice in a FMJ round. The 45 is better as a FMJ, if you can use hollow-points bullet diameter is not as critical.

The 6.5-8 mm diameter nicely splits the difference between 22 and 30 caliber and should be ideal for all around use. To be effective, the M16 platform needs to be scaled up slightly to accommodate a 30 round mag stuffed with 6.8mm ammo.

Ironically the Imperial Japanese army transitioned from 6.5mm to 7.7mm in the middle of WWII because of poor results of the 6.5 in China, creating logistical issues. The wheel goes round and round...LOL

[NYleatherneck]

Not sure how I feel about my face being so close to the business end of that thing.

[Garvin]

The United States Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR, NSN 1005-01-458-6235) is a semi-automatic gas-operated rifle chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. It is a modified and accurized variant of the Springfield Armory M-14 battle rifle built and utilized solely by the United States Marine Corps. The rifle is currently issued with M118LR 175-grain ammunition.

The most notable difference between the traditional M14 pattern rifle and the DMR is the addition of a McMillan Tactical M2A fiberglass riflestock in OD Green color on the DMR. This particular stock features a pistol grip and a buttstock with adjustable saddle cheekpeice. The DMR also features a 22 inch (~56 cm) match grade stainless steel barrel, which, in profile, is noticeably wider than the original GI-spec barrel. These barrels are supplied by two major contractors, Kreiger Barrels, Inc. and Mike Rock Rifle Barrels, Inc. The rifle is also equipped with a simple MIL-STD-1913 rail mounting system built by GG&G Armament Arizona which allows for the attachment of any optic system compatible with the MIL-STD-1913 rail (this would include a huge variety of military riflescopes and imaging devices, most notably the TS-30.xx series dayscope and the AN/PVS-10 or AN/PVS-17 night vision riflescopes; DMRs have been used in combination with Leupold Mark 4 10x scopes, along with Unertl 10x M40 scopes). DMRs utilize the traditional M-14 muzzle device, however, since deployment in Afghanistan in 2001, some DMRs have also been equipped with OPS, Inc. 2-port muzzle brake, threaded and collared to accept an OPS, Inc. 12th model muzzle brake suppressor sound attenuation device. The "basic" DMR (i.e. without secondary sight, magazine, sling, basic issue items, cleaning gear, suppressor, and bipod) weighs 11 pounds or less. The DMR design allows the sight mount, barrel, bolt, and other key assemblies to be repaired/replaced at the third echelon maintenance level. All DMRs are built at the Precision Weapons Shop at Quantico, Virginia.

The DMR is employed by the Marine Corps Scout/Sniper team when the mission requirements dictate the need for a weapon capable of delivering rapid, accurate fire against multiple targets at greater ranges and with greater lethality than the M16A2's 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartridge. It may also be used by the Designated Marksman (DM) assigned to the Marine Security Force Battalion and Military Police units in the execution of their security and counter-terrorist missions. They are also deployed with Marine Corps Explosive Ordnance Desposal teams.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Designated_Marksman_Rifle"

One Shot, One Kill

[Armedanddangerous]

The short term answer seems, at least to this non-military man, to be the M-4 chambered in 6.8SPC.

[RebelBanker]

The hide bound nature of military procurement for the past two centuries is the cause of the complaints you mention.

That is certainly one factor, but the hide bound nature of the military top brass who ultimately set the specifications is as well. The generals always seem to be afraid of the soldiers being able to fire too fast. That was a major contributor to the use of muzzle loaders during the War Between the States and then single shot and bolt action rifles thereafter. The logisticians were afraid the front line troops would burn up their ammunition more quickly that it could be resupplied.

The other factor was cost - during the WBTS, repeaters cost more than 10 times what muzzle-loaders did and their ammunition was also much harder to make and more expensive.

[Mikey_1962]

H&K's are fine weapons but a bit pricey...

[brainstem223]

No lefties need apply...!

[tigtog]

The DMR program was a nightmare. The troops rightly stopped carrying the rifle. Currently, we are mending this program by buying the NAVSPECWARFARE SR-25 rifle. The SR-25 was in competition with the M14 DMR but lost due to lousy magazines (failure to feed). The M14 is too heavy and with a 2.5 lbs gas system hanging on the barrel nearly impossible to keep zeroed in combat conditions. The M14 DMR was the result of rice bowl politics within the Marine Corps.