Comments on: ‘I can’t tell you exactly what we’re going to do’

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:04:00 +0000

I would go with the 243Win for the alrounder. Call it the 6mm NATO. It would give us the best of both worlds inbetwen the 5.56 and the 7.62. Load it with 95 – 105 grains

By: Bram

Bram — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:45:00 +0000

Vitor beat me to it – machine guns (with a few HK exceptions) are area weapond. When I fired SAW’s, I usually had to ask the guy next to me if I was on target. How the Hell would I know if the enemy is taking hits and not going down? If they are still moving, I’m just going to rip off another burst – probably will even if they aren’t moving. With a rifle, I could be pretty confident I was hitting my target with each shot. More with an M-14 but that’s a different arguement.

By: Vitor

Vitor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:41:00 +0000

The SAW is made for supressive intense fire. So the light recoil, small size and weight of the 5.56mm are quite ideal for it. The M-16/M-4 is another different business, its an assault RIFLE. When I see the word rifle, I imagine a gun that is accurate and doesnt require you to waste a lot of ammo, even though its an assault (aka automatic) one.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:29:00 +0000

What’s the mystery, you put enough .22 bullets in anyone and they’re probably going to die. What I like is the recommendation that our guys shoot more accurately. Now there’s a great recommendation from the safety of a lab or the Pentagon. You dumbasses, why didn’t you hit him in the heart or brain if you wanted him to die? Pretty damn easy to say from some place where people aren’t shooting back. If all you have a shot at is the guy’s arm or that’s the only piece you got while 10 other people were shooting at you, then you put a damn bullet in his arm. You’d like that bullet to put more than a clean .22 cal hole through it.

By: Hawk

Hawk — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:09:00 +0000

coolhand77: ‘You know, I still wonder why they don’t optimise the 5.56 if we are going to be saddled with it.’ Didn’t read the conclusion of the ‘Small Caliber Lethality’ article I provided the link for in my first post, did you? ;) I’d agree, though, that there would appear to be a sweet spot somewhere between 5.56 and 7.62. I wouldn’t vouch for specific configurations, but theoretically you can get the usable (as opposed to maximum) range of 7.62, as well as the penetration performance of a 7.62 in a smaller package. Logistical benefit: you can do away with light/medium machine guns in different calibers and get back to a common caliber at platoon level. ‘Cause I submit it’s not logistically practical to have both a 5.56 weapon and a 7.62 weapon ready for every trooper. Though here’s a question for you … why do significantly fewer SAW shooters complain about the lethality of their ammo, compared to M4/M16 shooters? They’re shooting the same round! (Yep, there are veolcity differences with the M4′s shorter barrel … maybe that optimized 5.56 should be optimized for an M4 … but M16A2/A4 and SAW have similar barrel length and rifling pattern) [Data source: Center for Naval Analysis, 'Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat', 2006. Not sure how this got on a publish website as according to the second page it's supposed to be a limited distribution document. Link: http://www.militec-1.com/pdf/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf ]

By: coolhand77

coolhand77 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:10:00 +0000

Just read through that study on the M14 and .45. You know what I noticed? They wanted a light carbine for jungle fighting and an a full battle rifle for open territory…hmmm, sounds like what we are dealing with right now, except the ‘jungle’ is urban, and the open turf is mountains instead of rice paddys. At least they don’t have to worry as much about rust in Iraq or Afganistan. In all honesty, use the right gun/cartridge for the right job. SOmething that hits a little harder at close range (weather it be a new/reissued cartridge or an improved 5.56) for the guys in Iraq, and something with better legs for Afganistan. Thats why alot of guys like the 6.5 Grendel. It seems to be the best compromise between the two extremes, without sacrificing ammo capacity (too much)and compactness of the 5.56 based systems, or the range of the 7.62 based systems (again, too much).

By: coolhand77

coolhand77 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:43:00 +0000

You know, I still wonder why they don’t optimise the 5.56 if we are going to be saddled with it. We have learned quite a bit more in materials, ballistics (both terminal and in-flight), and propellent technologies over the past 20 years, if we are going to be stuck with something in the 5.56 envelope, why not optomise the damn thing? Case in point, using high BC bullets will improve the range characteristics (a 6.5 grendel with the same Ballistic Coefficient as the current 5.56 loads would have effective ranges around the same as the current 5.56 loads), the improved Sectional Density of those high BC would improve penetration, while the increased length/mass of the bullet would probably improve the chances of it tumbling and fragmenting in soft tissue. Of course there are limitations, but I keep wondering what it would take to overcome those INSIDE the existing envelope. Hell, look at the performance you can squeeze out of the .30-06 or the .308/7.62×51 compared to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Sticking an improved projectile, with improved ballistics infront of improved powder and you get significantly improved performance using the exact same weapon, and you can still use the old ammo.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:25:00 +0000

Having more than guesses made by a laboratory that they have in now way correlated with field experience is nice too. Fact of the matter is, we’re in a war now. Why aren’t they using it as a lab to test new weapons or at least to figure out if their tests using ballistic gelatin are worth a damn? The answer is, they would be if they were interested in an answer. What they really want is controversy, because you can turn controversy the money it takes to support a bureaucracy. We need more Americans and fewer bureaucrats.

By: Hawk

Hawk — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:08:00 +0000

The irony is that the M14 in Vietnam got equally mixed feedback from the troops (and frankly, having seen field surveys from both eras, I’d say the M14 feedback from VN was much worse than current M4/M16 feedback). Check out this study on M14 and .45 effectivness, which is based solely on field surveys: http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD649517&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Point being, everyone has an anecdote, but they are all just that: anecdotal. You need a lot more than just anecdotes to make an equipping decision for the entire force.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:36:00 +0000

By the way, people have changed very little since WW2. Some have gotten a little bigger. Our guys have gotten significantly bigger. Strange that our guns got smaller.