Army, Marines rate weapon success (M16A2/A4; M4; M9)

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

[Travis McGee]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your last. You are quite right about the SEAL needs in a light MG. Plus, they have their own armorers to modify and baby everything between missions, unlike the Marines where the weapon must be dragged through hell for weeks at a time with little or no repair capabiltiy.

[Travis McGee]

Your 153 is one of the great "what ifs" of military weapons history!

[Darksheare]

For advance party, it was perfect.
We needed something for close in, but quiet at the same time so the hornet's nest that might've been around the corner didn't come looking.
The other option on the wish list was the M-4 with a suppressor.
From personal experience during At at Fort Drum, I found the 16 to be too big for 99% of what we ran into.
As well as too loud.
'Course, I had also suggested for vehicle mounted weapons for use as suppressive fire, a minigun.
Yes, I was a firm believer in overwhelming firepower.
I was in artillery after all.
And I had also suggested that advance partty be trained in how to act as a forward observor so we could call artillery fire in over our own heads should we need to do so.
Again, I was told I was insane.
THEN we ran into a situation at Drum during AT where being able to call in fire over our own heads would have been perfect.
No-one knew how to do it.

[tortoise]

I always knew when my 16 misfired or I'd just run out of ammo because it didn't sound or feel the same.

Heh. Roger that. That is one of the things I liked about the M16. You could always tell the status of the action by the sound and feel of the shot. Definitely not true on some other combat rifles, and it is one of the many details that I learned to love about the rifle. Every time you pulled the trigger you knew if you had another round ready to go; if the mag was empty, or there was a blockage/jam, or if the bolt didn't seat, you could feel and/or hear it. On the fly diagnostics without having to peer into the action.

[RaceBannon]

Lucky for us, we never had to walk up the gangplank of a ship (like the Marines) with everything for our world for the next year on our backs! One trip, one load, that's it!

Um, I have done just that. So have many of us! :)

One ALICE pack and a Seabag, tha's it!

[Squantos]

Someday soon I am of the opinion they will learn that lesson sadly. My Uncle for the most part walked from Normandy to Berlin under fire. I was impressed with the USMC's effort to upgrade to Gore Tex, dump the shelter halves and such but as an ultra light camper while active duty and now in retirement I know they can do better.

With the exception of a mandatory MOPP gear A3 bag that stayed in camp or staging areas I carried all my goodies in a then new ruck we had called a CFP90. Worked very well. Even with extream weight loadouts of team gear and personal existance loads.

Troops in Iraq right now are getting a lesson in tough IMO. Hopefully they will learn from it and improve physically, mentally and material wise........oooops .....back to that after action report that is never read.......:o)

Stay Safe !

[The KG9 Kid]

I wasn't in Recon. God no. USMC MOS 0331 is 'infantry machinegunner'.

Specifically, I was in a heavy weapons platoon, headquarters company. A REMF, truck-riding, hot showering, chow hall commando who had bunkers made for us by engineers with heavy equipment while we read comic books.

Spent most of my time trying to get transferred to the air wing to be a long-haired, CH46-riding, apartment-living, aerial-machinegunning, NCO-club commando.

Had a *few* hard days, though.

[IGOTMINE]

Bullet trap rifle grenades are just the ticket. Flat trajectory...lots of KA-RUMP on the other end. Everyone becomes a grenadier.

[Darksheare]

My civilian shooter, a Ruger 10/22, doesn't telegraph when you're empty or misfired.
Well.. it might.
I just haven't fired it enough yet to learn to read what it's telling me.
But still.. I always knew things were good when the 16 went 'boink'.
When I heard it go 'bonk' or 'bong', or worse, 'clunk'.. I KNEW there was trouble.

Or the famous pop and no kick.
That one always raised the hairs on the back of my neck.
Even though it was all during training, it made the hair stand up.
I loved that about my 16, being able to hear what the thing was doing.. I hated that it was too big lengthwise and too loud soundwise for what my particular job was in my artillery unit. The joke was this, "Who do you hate on your gun crew? Put them on advance party." Meaning, we had a low life expectancy. Unfortnately, if you are extremely good at it, you get 'typecast' in that job.

[Dubya]

Me too.

I say give these Marimes what they need to defend theirselves.

So much money wasted elsewhere for them not to have what they need.

[Darksheare]

Amen to that.

[The KG9 Kid]

There's even rocket-assisted 'shoot-through' rifle grenades that are powerful enough to get through 300mm of armor plate. Use them with regular ball ammo just like the bullet trap models, but they are a lot softer launch. I think that they can even be fired from the shoulder, but don't quote me on that.

The French make some, and the Israelis use them for just about everything.

The US Army Rangers have taken up using the M79 grenade launcher again.

[tortoise]

The ballistic performance of a round isn't a good indicator of how well it works against an animal. Just because a round doesn't drop as much at a given range doesn't make it superior. If it did, grizzly hunters would be using the 223. The point that I was trying to make was that the 7.62 retains more energy because the bullet is heavier.

Bullet weight has a meaningless relation to energy retention. Ballistic coefficient specifically, and more generally sectional density, is the primary determinant of how much energy will be retained down-range. The only other meaningful variable is how fast you drive it.

The amount a bullet drops at a certain range is mathematically related to the same properties that determine penetration, and penetration is the primary performance factor for killing critters. So it IS related. The two primary determinants of penetration are sectional density and velocity -- "bigger" has nothing to do with it. The 7.62x39 doesn't have much of either, whereas the 5.56x45 has moderate quantities of both, so for an equivalent bullet design, the 5.56x45 will both have more range AND better penetration on target.

It is physics, not voodoo. It is the reason "tiny" 6.5mm bullets have been used to kill countless moose, elephants, and bear, while no one would dream of using a .308 in most cases, which is technically "bigger" in every dimension except those that actually matter. The object isn't to launch "big bullets", it is to hit the vitals of your target.

[tortoise]

My civilian shooter, a Ruger 10/22, doesn't telegraph when you're empty or misfired.

I never could read a 10/22 either, and I certainly used it enough. I traded up for a mag-fed bolt-action Anschutz sporter that can shoot well under 1-MOA all day with the lovely-but-cheap Winchester 40gr PowerPoints. Really quite nice for $400-500; I'll probably never get rid of it. I can't bust loose with it like a semi-auto, but then I rarely miss with it even at a distance.

Cheaper than just about anything else that performs as good (e.g. Win M52). But I digress...

[SauronOfMordor]

The Russians have been WAY ahead us here. Their 5.45mm "poison bullets" are a case in point. (That is what the Afghans called them when the AKMs came into the Soviet system.)

Wolf Ammo sells lots of Russian-calibre ammo in the US. Perhaps they might be talked into making the same type bullet in .223?

[Britton J Wingfield]

Hey, regarding your "Marines don't have a football team" image on your homepage: My dad played football for Camp Lejeune around '49-'50.

[Darksheare]

I like my Ruger, fires sweet for a semi auto 22.
And it's good enough for woodchucks and such.
But then again, I'm not looking to go all out on it just yet.
Having been out of the uniform and out of shooting practice for the same three years, I'm getting myself re-aquainted with shooting. (A good idea.)
And I'm doing so slowly.

Used Remington 22 lightnings, guy next to me was using Federals, guy on the other side of him was using CCI Blazers (or so the box said). They kept getting jams just about one out of every 15 rounds.
I tossed about 139 rounds downrange without a single jam or misfire. And the ammo I used is 6 years old...
When I get the spare money up, I'll shop around and ask for info.
Guess who is on my list to bug about it once I am ready to do so?
Thanks for the info beforehand.

[anymouse]

Marine ping

[river rat]

I guess we're not the only old farts in the forum.

Ditto on the M14/M1A, 1911A1, M60, M870 sawed off at both ends short shotguns....loads alternate between 00 and slug.

THEN we got serious....for the patrols where we expected to "greet" some barges or vehicles coming down "the river road"...
We'd have the 'yards hump a full 106mm R/R rig and about ten rounds - depending on the number of 'yards..together with a couple of thermite grenades if we had to destroy our heavy weapons and haul ass.

81mm Mortars with a mix of Woolly Peter and HE....
C14 with detonators and blasting cord....

Later, we "liberated" an old Thompson .45cal Sub-machine gun with two straight magazines --- This was an unbelievably effective and reliable weapon in our "close" environment under the canopy, and I don't understand why it dropped out of favor..


And you know.....We NEVER had a problem with a torso or head shot not being enough. The 7.62 and the .45 are both proven rounds.....but there are a whole lot of dead VC and NVA with 5.56 stitching in their asses that would be surprised to hear it wasn't a lethal round...

The three "problems" with the M14 that killed it for modern warfare..
1. Too long --- for close quarters
2. Too heavy -- both the weapon and equiv. number of rounds to carry.
3. Too much gun for our "little bitty" allies.....

But, that damned M14 would sure as hell kill anything you hit well with it -- way out past 5oo yards...

Can not comment on any weapons past the M14....never needed or wanted to need one.

Semper Fi

[river rat]

Agreed.
The "entry hole" is unimportant....to a degree..

The IMPORTANT thing...is what that round does while it is coursing through the enemy's body and how large and clear a bleeding trough it makes and how much damage to organs, bones and "nervous system"...

A round that expands to 2x/3x the entry hole - and gets very "wiggly" in the body -- will do a nice job..
However....FMJ is not the best choice...

Semper Fi