Army, Marines rate weapon success

Stars and Stripes ^ | Sunday, July 13, 2003 | Mark Oliva

[tortoise]

I also hear that a guy named Glock has made some ultra reliable pistols that are favored by police in the U.S.

Glock has some deficiencies as a military weapon that don't practically impede its use as a police weapon (which it was originally designed to be). There are definitely better military service pistols out there. But it is great for police or home use. I have a G27 for CCW in fact.

As a technical nit, Glock reliability is middle of the road for modern service pistols. There are a number of other popular platforms that have substantially better MRBF figures.

[tortoise]

I would point out that many of the comments reference the "feelings" of the soldiers with no regard to whether it has any bearing on reality and fact. The article has hints of urban legend all over the place in it, and I can state for a fact that most of what grunts think they know about weapons is pure voodoo and third-hand anecdotes of dubious origin. This isn't reason enough to question the effectiveness of a weapon.

There is very little substance to the article that references real specific shortcomings with the weapons that weren't intentionally designed into the platform -- no weapon system can do everything perfectly -- and trade-offs in capability are to be expected to get the maximum performance in the general case.

[tortoise]

Can female soldiers qualify shooting the 7.62 round at 1000 yds (as was the old standard)?

What the hell does gender have to do with how well a person can shoot a wimpy-ass cartridge like the 7.62 NATO, or any cartridge for that matter? The only possible relevance is the weight of a rifle that you have to lug around all day.

If shooting ability for a given cartridge size was a measure of manhood, my 110-lb girlfriend must have a johnson that drags on the ground. Puhhlease. This is an imaginary issue.

[tortoise]

Personally, I like to be able to shoot at something from a long ways off and have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

Not me. I'll take a weapon that is light and fast any day. When it starts to get close and personal, I would rather avoid boat anchors at all cost. Go ahead and have a guy or two in your squad with some extended range capability (something that the M16 can be configured to do quite adequately actually, if built right), but you'll want most of your guys using systems that are optimized for killing in the 200 meters and under range.

[Cacique]

BFL8R

[marktwain]

There is very little substance to the article that references real specific shortcomings with the weapons that weren't intentionally designed into the platform -- no weapon system can do everything perfectly -- and trade-offs in capability are to be expected to get the maximum performance in the general case.

Excellent observation. This also applies to most of the posts. Though well intentioned, there is a lot of mythology out there, especially about the difference between the 9mm and the .45. The energy of both is practically identical, and the only studies worthy of the name shows "stopping power" to be nearly identical as well.

Stopping power is very hard to quantify, and with full metal jacketed military rounds, you are very likely to have to shoot a determined opponent several times, no matter what military pistol caliber you use.

[Buzzcook]

Lack of range was and is a crucial problem in Afghanistan. The short barreled rifle simply does not have the range for the conditions our soldiers faced.
Some folks suggested adding a long barreled rifle in 7.62 to each squad to help with the problem. In other words going back 40 years to the M-14.

Buzz

[Prodigal Son]

Well, we both have our opinions on this. Apparantly some of the guys on the ground see it both ways:

“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”

[Shooter 2.5]

You're out of your mind for posting loads like that.

Children, do not attempt the previous loads. Do not try it at home. Do not try it anywhere.

[Gringo1]

Yeah, the military needs a 7.62 rifle more than ever. I think they are scared it might hurt little shoulders.

[Shooter 2.5]

I haven't figure out what exactly they're complaining about in this article.

They mention the thirty year old controversy and put the blame on the M-16 rifle instead of the real reason which was the gunpowder. If they wanted controversy in the ancient times, why didn't they discuss the teething problems of the Garand??

Next, they didn't like the range of the M-16 but they picked up AK-47's to use???

Then they traded rifles for pistols but didn't like the fact they were unreliable??

They showed firing pin marks on the primers, neglecting to say that the non-existant problem started in 1936.

Gees, learn to clean a magazine, use a better lube and the rest of these "problems" can disappear.

[Armedanddangerous]

May I point out to everyone one important fact?

When it comes to standard military ammo, the 45acp beats the hell out of a 9mm any time. However, this is the problem.

The 9mm with standard 115 gr +p hollowpoint ammunition is quite a sufficient manstopper. I carry the Cor Bon version in my Glock 26.

As long as our troops are saddled with FMJ military ball ammunition, the M-9 will continue to be an insufficient manstopper.

Attack the ammo, not the gun.

Until then, get a new bullet, or go back to a proven manstopper, the 230 Gr ball 45 auto round.

[Mr Rogers]

Don't know about 1000 yards, but my 5'1" daughter recently qualified at 500 yards. Good thing, too - she didn't shoot too well at 300 yards. Figures she'll either have to shoot 'em at 500, or wait until they close to 200 yards. In between they are safe.

Of course, it would be preferable it the Marines avoided sending her to the front lines - as she'll admit, 5'1" & 115 lbs has real drawbacks for combat.

[MediaMole]

It's generally a bad idea to quote handloading recipes in a general forum like this without some serious warnings. Especially one that is seriously over the max quoted loads.

Your load for .45 auto is 67% over Alliant's max load and almost 50% over Lyman's max load.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use a load that works for you, but it looks like you are treading on the ragged edge and it may not be a safe load for someone else.

[300winmag]

But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.

Regardless of your opinion of the 9mm (and I think it stinks as a military round, it isn't even adequate as a police round), magazines are considered "semi-expendable" in the military. Wanna bet there was no money in the budget for replacement mags during the klinton regime, just like there was no money for small arms ammo production?

[Jonez712]

Bring back the BAR-1918!!

:p

[demlosers]

O.K. then bring back the M1903.

:p

[Shooter 2.5]

That was a very polite posting. I have to work on my tact but loads that are that hot are very bothersome to me. I have a pet load for a 45 Colt that goes to double digits with a 255 grain bullet and I won't post it at all. Especially since it's only used in a Ruger Blackhawk.

[Shooter 2.5]

Did the 45-70 Trapdoor fans think a 30-40 Krag was a mouse gun?