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

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

[Squantos]

ROTFLMAO......crack troops........:o)

Stay Safe !

[hook2]

I agree, we need the 7.62 back. I always carried a scoped mounted M-14 on my track. Both of my gunners were excellent marksmen, and would provide very effective fire out to 500 meters. We avoided a lot of fire fights with the M-14, as it kept their head down, and they usually bugged out.

[xzins]

See Travis McGee's #56 The new 62 grain ammo has greater accuracy at long range, and penetrates armor etc better, but it is much less lethal than the old 55 grain ammo. The new ammo often drills neat "knitting needle" wounds which may be lethal later, but are not manstoppers now. The old 55 grain stuff was unstable and "tumbled" when strking an enemy, leaving awesome wound channels for much better instant stopping.

62 gr. is too fast and simply punches holes. 55 gr would be even faster, but is more lethal because it's unstable and tumbles on striking the target (because it's lighter?). 77 gr is slower and gives greater knockdown.

Interesting lethality chart. As you increase weight you seem to temporarily decreased lethality. I wonder if the 55 or the 77 is more lethal.

[Sparta]

Let's talk guns.

If you want on or off the Western Civilization Military History ping list, let me know.

[SauronOfMordor]

The RPG is a wicked little weapon and deserves some counter-measure attention AND something similar deserves to be in the hands of our own troops.

What we have is the M72A1 LAW(Light ANtitank Weapon, which is a one-shot weapon weighing over 5 pounds. To carry multiple LAW rounds, you have to carry multiple launcher tubes, which can be a pain.

What's needed is something similar to the RPG or old-style bazooka, where you have a reloadable launcher with separately-carried packs of rockets, like a 3-pack in a resealable light container that can be attached to your ALICE gear. It also needs to be cheap enough that troops can actually get to fire a couple of dozen rounds in training to get comfortable with it.

[SauronOfMordor]

Interesting lethality chart. As you increase weight you seem to temporarily decreased lethality. I wonder if the 55 or the 77 is more lethal.

The twist-rate in the rifling is also a factor. The original spec from Stoner called for a 1-in-14 twist rate, which produced the lethal "tumbling" action, but reduced accuracy at long ranges. A fast twist (1-in-9) makes for better accuracy, but you lose the tumbling. A VERY fast twist (1-in-7) makes the bullet spin so fast that it tends to fragment on impact (again increasing lethality)

[xzins]

I never met anyone who really liked the LAW.

The RPG isn't really an anti-tank round and that's what our researchers are trying to devise...and individual anti-tank weapon. They've probably got it in some future form of the Javelin (fire/forget, lethal, deployable for short distances by one soldier.)

But the RPG is, as you say, a reusable, rocket-propelled, high lethality weapon that's cheap enough to put into the hands of individuals.

It's no wonder that our troops like our own grenade launcher.

[ezsmoke]

Please add me to your ping list, thank you.

[El Laton Caliente]

Most people don’t realize that military rifles are designed that way on purpose. Most do not have firing pin springs (which break in machine guns) for reliability reasons. Whereas hunting rifles have firing pin springs for safety reasons.

Military specification ammo has a heavy duty (thicker metal) primer than hunting ammo. This is the main and most important difference between the 5.56 NATO and the .223 Remington as well as the 7.62x51 NATO and the .308.

The slam fires are normally seen when civilian ammo is loaded into a military rifle. The military primers are designed to take the “ping” from a free floating firing pin, but the hunting rounds will go off causing slam fire or even an uncontrolled full auto discharge.

Both of my CETME’s dent primers but I have never had a slam fire using mil-surplus ammo. You will never see me feed .308 hunting ammo to the;^)

[MattinNJ]

I am absolutely stunned by this article. I thought that our front line troops would all have top notch weapons of their choice.

I remember seeing "Black Hawk Down" where a D-boy tells a Ranger about the knock down power of a certain gun. I couldn't help but think why the Ranger didn't have the same weapon. I really thought it must have been an exception due to a supply mishap.

[Britton J Wingfield]

M-240 machine gun

Marines who gave the first real-world test to the M-240G, the heavier successor to the old M-60 machine gun, weren’t disappointed.

Still, soldiers said, some improvements could be made. Among their suggestions: a lighter tripod, and collapsible bipods like the M-249 SAW.

Sounds like they want the Navy's MK43. It has a foregrip, collapsible bipod, and an optional shorter barrel for fighting in enclosed structures.

[Britton J Wingfield]

If someone else has rezeroed my weapon to suit them, and then hands it back to me, how can I sanely expect to be able to hit anything when I really have to without rezeroing the weapon to my settings?

If you learn what your 'battle sight zero' then you can get your m-16 very close to zeroed before you is fire a shot. Mine is 6 left, zero down.

Then again, I was never taught this by any of the navy or marine instructors I've had. I learned it from an FBI type who gave us a little extra coaching one weekend.

Works like a charm.

[Britton J Wingfield]

I was in one unit where they spent nearly a hundred grand on a designer tent that would house all the division support staff under one roof while in the field. That way they could talk to each other.

That way they could all be taken out by the same scud.

[xzins]

They were counting on the unreliable targeting ability of the Scud and the fact that Division Rear is about 50 clicks behind the action.

[colorado tanker]

I guess I'm just an old fossil. I'd take an M-14 over an M-16 and a .45 over an M-9. Of course, I'd pick a main gun over both.

[mbynack]

The bad guys did not have a clear advantage. 7.62 Warsaw has poor ballistics and AKs are not particularly accurate at long range. If someone's ever seen one place at a highpower match, let me know.

The ballistics on the 7.62 aren't all that poor and AK-47 is more reliable in harsh conditions than the M-16, especially in the fine dust of the middle east. A lot of AK-47's aren't made to close tolerances, which makes them less accurate, but less likely to jam when they're in a dusty environment. You're correct in the fact that no weapon is ideal for every type of mission. Given a choice I would take the SAW over both the AK and the M-16 for the type of combat they're doing in the gulf.

[Britton J Wingfield]

OK, delete scud and insert 'crazed-jihadi-gi-turncoat armed with a satchel charge or some grenades'

[buwaya]

The .45 1911 works fine for me too. Maybe its the extra weight forward ? Also its not noticably got more recoil than the 9mm's.

The biggest problem is the limited magazine capacity.

[xzins]

If the crazed dude has infiltrated division Rear with all that stuff, then some important folks are gonna die anyway. Whether the combat supporters/service supporters are all under one roof or under 5 or 6 roofs, you're gonna lose something important with Mad Mohammed on the loose.

But the Discom was going for speed of decision making and information flow by grouping in one location.

But you are absolutely correct. When you group together you are accepting an increased level of risk. They thought better information management made the risk worth taking.

[fourdeuce82d]

I'd pick a main gun over both

Real men shoot weapons with the words "100" and "millimetres" in their description.

(generous exception made for M48 90 gunners. And 90 mike-mike Reckless Rifles)