We’ve written a number of posts about the debate surrounding the infantry’s standard small arms, the ubiquitous M-4 and M-16 rifles, and whether or not they can effectively engage the enemy in Afghanistan where most firefights occur past 300 meters.
For those looking for a great read on the subject check out this paper by Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (.pdf). In Afghanistan, the infantryman’s “weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate,” Ehrhart writes.
Christian Lowe, over at Kit Up, writes that special operators in Afghanistan have shown a marked preference for the 7.62mm Mk-17 version of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) over the 5.56mm Mk-16 version. In fact SOCOM has stopped buying 5.56mm Mk16s and is telling troopers to return them to the armory but continues to buy the Mk-17.
Christian found some comments from an Army SOF operator on a discussion board extolling the virtues of the 7.62mm round in Afghanistan:
I will say that hands down, having 7.62 rounds (LR) flying out towards the enemy at significant range (600-800m) has been a big advantage. Most of our engagements have been at range.
I’ve also heard rumor the we (USASFC) will not receive more SCARs or parts, but this team has definitely enjoyed the 7.62 capability on this trip, regardless of platform. Who ever has the power, we’ve got to get the teams this 7.62 capability (besides belt feds and sniper systems) for this theater.
– Greg Grant
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
It's about time they got the 7.62.Every active duty and retired soldier I know says the extended range and stopping power of the 7.62 is what they need.Some General with SF background must have finally got the point across.
Of all the reasons why we are losing in Afghanistan, rifle caliber has got to be close to the bottom, right after the color of the toilet paper.
There's that chip, again….
The round is one of the reasons. I agree its not the top reason and that we do have other problems hindering our efforts (Afghan corruption), but I wouldn't say it's on the bottom of the list.
Hey brown toilet blends in better with the background… Pink attracts rounds like flies.
But how can you tell when to stop wiping?
When the brown paper turns pink.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/af...
Above, the article says snipers are taking a toll. As for using the best available, again Custer should be the guide…
I can understand not buying more 5.56mm Mk.16s as it isn't a huge improvement over the M4, but making soldiers return them to the armory? That is just stupid.
Might as well if you are gonna stop buying spare parts for them. M-4 or M-16 with a gas-piston kit will do the same with more parts commonality to the original M-4 and M-16.
gman is correct; it's a supply-chain issue.
Let's bring this back to the topic of conventional forces. Ultimately, we can issue firearms in 5.56, 7.62, .30-06, or particle beams, and it will do absolutely zero good if we do not have an effective institutional basis for teaching long-range shooting. I have not been in the military, but from what I have heard almost universally, marksmanship training past three-hundred meters runs from minimal to non-existent.
That is unacceptable, and the first step towards a long-range infantry capability. The second step is some kind of tactical explosive weapon. The XM-25 looks perfect for that role, but it would really seem wise to issue Carl Gustavs / RAWS on a Company basis in the interm.
I don't know for sure but I think all training over 500yd. is advanced scout and sniper.I agree that all shooters should qualify for @750yd.You can't take out the bad guys if you can't hit s*** past 300yd.
Completely agreed.
The reason SOCOM buy this rifle is because they are all high quality shots. Also, SOCOM buy stuff on a I-need-it-now basis, because they are purchases in small numbers. So tomorrow they may buy another rifle.
If we look at just what SOCOM buy as a guess at what a normal soldier needs, then half of the soldiers would probably be running around with MP5's putting 9mm rounds even shorter distances down the range.
Maybe every soldier believes that he/she should be in SOCOM?
500 meter training is virtually non-existent in the Army because they use the M4 as their primary rifle which is meant for relatively close range combat at around 300 meters or so. However, in the Corps we train out to 500 meters as a regular part of our marksmanship training and, to the best of my knowledge, are still being issued mainly full sized M16A4s; for us 200 meters is short range since that's where we start at for rifle qualification then we move out to 300, and then 500. Furthermore, the Corps does marksmanship training on full sized ranges, we don't simulate range by using smaller targets so we get the full effects of bullet drop and windage.
To Riceball, As an infantryman in the Army I always qualified on full size ranges with man size silhouettes. I did it with An M16A1, A2 and M4. When the Army used the M16 my unit did do long range shooting to 500 meters. Before I deployed to Iraq in 06 my squad designated marksmen had to go throught a long range shooting coures. other units were doing the same thing. Now there were times when I witnessed Marines on ranges shooting there M16's with no gear on at all. In the Army we always wore are battle rattle because we always stessed train as you fight. Now if I were to make a off comment that the Marines virtually never trained as they fight or could'nt stay in uniform I would be crazy.You should not make un-substantiated comments about the entire Army, each unit has its own personality in every branch of service.
The M4 isn't even a rifle. Its a carbine meant for cqb and vehicles. Not troops out in the mountains fighing at 900 meter range.
Earlydawn, I'd like to see you try to hit some targets @200m with a gas mask on. It's not that easy, and I'm a damn good shot. You think everyone in the military could get hits at 500m? The farther out the shot, the more training and range time required, both of those are scarce these days. That training would best be left to designated marksmen, train them up, and they can coach people in their units. It's very impractical to expect the entire military to be crack shots.
that mk-17 auto-open bolt capability sold me early on, if only they made it in bullpup now
All those lovely M-14 languishing in warehouses! Train to 500 meters at boot camp and have extra scout/sniper troops in each platoon. The M-16 was a disaster in Nam and we are fighting the last war with it. Should have dumped it before Desert Storm.
Redesign the M-14 with modern alloys and weight reductions, or scale up the Mattel rifle to a proper weapon.
Marines still train out to 500 meters and in both the Army and the Corps they now have what are called designated marksman who are equipped with either an accurized M16 or some form of AR10 like the Knight's Armament SR-25 at (I think) either the squad or platoon level.
As for the M14, a lot have been pulled out and used early on as designated marksman rifles and while the guts of the rifle remained the same they often had new composite stocks. I also believe that some elements of SOCOM still use M14s, the SEALs in particular I know used to have at least 1 man in their squad with an M14 but with the SCAR being issued to SOCOM now I don't know if the SEALs stills use the M14 anymore.
Google "enhanced battle rifle." Its a re engineered M14 with all the modern bells and whistles. They've been issuing them to infantry units for the past few years and I think its now up to 2 per squad.
Which warehouse is that? Clinton gave away the M14 in quantity because "someone" wanted them out of the reach of the CMP/DCM. When they needed them the boxes were empty. We had the quick and ready solution but gave it away as FMS.
the M-14's are all being heavily used now; re-stocked and reconfigured. There just are not enough left.
In 1968 during Tet we were armed with the M14 but I had a detachment with M16. They turned them in for the M14 after the first lul in the battle. The M16 is nice to carry around but if you really want to kill the 7.62 is hard to beat. If you really study the history of the M16 it was never intended to be a main battle rifle. The designer intended it to ba a mass produced improvement over the M2 submachine gun for the big clash we expected with the soviets in the 1950's. Mr. Stoner had much better designd for a main battle rifle but politics and budget issues ruled as usual.
The T. Ehrhart paper points out that 6.5 mm Grendel has better penetration than 7.62 mm out to 1000 meters & will fit in the magazines of the existing inventory of M4 & M16. Replacing the direct gas operation is a separate issue, but there's kits available to do that too.
Grendel isn't going to end up as anything more then a Police / Checkpont round. It's just too heavy.
Because of the Grendel's excessive powder over burn past the chamber, it burns out barrels to fast to be useful. It seems that the real facts are lost in these endless discussions. A little hands on use would give you all the truth. As far as the 6.5 goes it is useless for long term military use simply because it is not fees able to replace the barrels every few hundred rounds.
If the 6.5 Grendel is too heavy then I guess the Remington 6.8 SPC and the NATO 7.62X51mm must be way too heavy?. What's too heavy when your life is at stake? I have commented on this issue in these "Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" posts identifying existing small arms weapons and explosive ordinance all the way up to to the MRAP's and Strykers required. Ammunition is like water … you have to have enough of the right kind in order to survive.
Weight has become a zero-sum game with individual equipment. Body armor, ammo, water, tools, optics, and weapons all weigh a soldier down. They've done a lot to lighten up some units, especially those with plate carriers instead of IOTVs. However, we still carry upwards of 70 pounds on a patrol. If we switch to heavier than 5.56, we'll either have to carry less ammo, cut equipment, or carry more weight than we are now.
I went to a seminar here in the UK recently, (OPSEC permitting few details) and a point that was raised by someone fairly senior in a hypothetical question that had been posed…
Two rounds, 6.8SPC, and .338 Lapua Magnum would, thanks to various advanced ballistics, be able to perform every role from carbine right up to HMG as the .338 actually carries better and penetrates harder than the .50 at range.
Not going to happen OF COURSE, but an interesting idea.
We need M16A4's and FNH MK 17 SCAR-S with accurized 16" barrels using a 77 grain 5.56X45mm and 7.62X51mm respectively. Assault rifles should have M203 grenade launchers attached. In addition M32 rotary granade launchers and as many AT4's, AT4-CS's, and Javelins as possible. Several of the assault weapons would be fitted with double drum magazines. For sniping the FNH USA MK 17 SCAR-LB with 20” barrel or a Barrett M98B .338 Lapua Magnum for greater range. Machine guns required would be M2 Browning heavy machine gun; M240G medium machine gun 7.62X51mm.. The FN MK 48 Mod 1 belt fed squad automatic weapon caliber 7.62X51mm can be configured with clip-on combat pouches for 100 rounds each with quick change barrel capability making it a truly lightweight squad automatic weapon the military can hump in rough terrain. And now motars humped over rough mountainous terrain the 60mm M224 weight 14.4 lb, bipod 15.2 lb, base plate 14.4 lb, could be mounted on pack animals with effective range 3500~ meters or the 81mm M252 mortars, with effective range of 6000~ meters to saturate fixed enemy positions with devastating indirect fire power.
This is why I love this site-you can read intelligent responses from knowedgable people and learn things that you didn't know.
I like your idea for the most part but 203s on every assault rifle I don't know about that, little much considering all the weight, and the M32 is a piece of garbage.
By assault rifle I mean the M16A4's with 20" barrels and FNH MK 17 SCAR-S with accurized 16" barrels. If the M32 is such a piece of garbage then even more so. Ask the Marines what it was like on rugged uneven or mountainous terrain on Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Korea and how important indirect fire was to get to the enemy. The US Marines used hand grenades, rifle grenade launching, mortars, small Howitzers, and air support to overcome the terrain factor. If you study military strategy you must remember the three most important things which dictate strategy and tactics … terrain, terrain, terrain. Also required is one man high-volume small arms fire like the WWII US Marines modiifed M1919A2 Stinger and Browning BAR in 30'06. Today this would be a M60 or M240 machine gun firing the NATO 7.62X51mm caliber.
such as;
—————————————————————————————————————
The M242 Bushmaster is a 25 mm (25x137mm) chain-fed autocannon. It is used extensively by the US armed forces, as well as by NATO's and some other nations' forces in ground vehicles and watercraft.
It is an externally powered, chain driven, single-barrel weapon which may be fired in semi-automatic or automatic modes. It is fed by a metallic link belt and has dual-feed capability. The term "chain gun" derives from the use of a roller chain that drives the bolt back and forth.
The gun can destroy lightly armored vehicles and aerial targets (such as helicopters and slow-flying aircraft). It can also suppress enemy positions such as exposed troops, dug-in positions, and occupied built-up areas. The standard rate of fire is 200 rounds per minute. The weapon has an effective range of 3,000 meters, depending on the type of ammunition used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster
———————————————————————————————————————-
good post Steven!
the issue is whether anything but a direct hit by small arms fire is the ticket?
some of the posters are griping about small arms training at distance.
i'd approach this another way;
why not fight long distance fire fights with long distance large kill radius weapons like 25->40 mm guns on mobile platforms for side by side infantry support?
what's not to like about this? greater range, increased kill radius.
the bad guys are behind walls and in the rocks so shot the big stuff and
rock and roll.
The problem with using vehicle mounted direct fire chain guns is getting them to the rough terrain and high altitudes being patrolled by our ground troops who can't even get a HMMWV there. This makes it impossible to get any other vehicles to those areas with the fire power you want to use. We need enough long range direct fire to pin down the Taliban in that terrain. Our troops can also use AT4-CS and Javelins to keep them pinned down then hit them with indirect mortar fire and/or air support to pulverize them in the uneven terrain at those altitudes.
It seems to me that if the Army gets the XM25 working reliably and fields them in large numbers, this single system will do more to enhance the lethality over the "infantry half-kilometer" than any conceivable combination of changes in rifles and bullet calibers.
The smart move for the army is to wait and see how the XM25 performs in Afghanistan, and save their money for potential wide distribution down to the squad level.
Perhaps this is also why SOCOM is canceling the MK 16 SCAR. If they have to spend $25K per piece for 10,000 XM25s, there just won't be any money left for a new rifle with marginally better reliability and handling.
The problem is easy to solve, get rid of the 14"&16"/18" barrels get back to the 20" original design and produce the ammo that can do the job in 5.56×45 ammo. It has been around for decades and it is the most cost effective way. The type of ammo i am writting about is very effective out at 800 meters and still rips a big hole in the enemy or knocks through hard barriers. But! i guess the armchair/pentagon generals need their extra sideline pay so they waste time and lives, This has been going on since the start of our great country the rats caring more about their pockets then our troops. The same story even before the roman empire for so many countries through out time. When is it going to be time to put the boot to the pentagon and shake things up for once?. All i see is the pentagon has gotten to fat and lazy looking for the money more then caring for our troops!. I still remember the $500 hammers and the $2,500 toilet seats some how this crap is still going on. The money it takes to build a new rifle is under $2000 with opitics. They need to stop this crap and start caring about America for once and not their pockets!
If you show me a 5.56 round that is "very effective" out to 800 metres i will show you a flying pig.
A 5.56×45 bullet fired out of an M16 (20in barrel) only has a effective range against point targets of 600 meters.
Knight's has an excellent option in their SR-28, which is SEAL approved now. Not cheap, but it is a hell of a firearm. Ramp up a contract for a few thousand and the costs will drop considerably.
Cost may drop, but never considerable. Its the nature of the (beast) industry. Ike was right.
I propose a thought, why not make a new outstanding rifle/cartridge not based on any platform constraints but designed from the ground up, free from politics or agenda's, even traditional bias. Truly designed in every way for the crucible of war and its environments. Why because its the right thing to do. Know the patriotic duty of those capable to supply the US Warrior with the finest instruments of there trade. Make a profit… Sure, but more along the lines as a medium to long term investment. Think large sale at an honest price, re-equipping all of NATO.
Sounds lofty I know. But really why not, Instant bloated profit?
-Randall-
Amazing when u think that Joe citizen can get a decent-heavy hitting-semi -auto 308 for a decent price easier than our soldiers in combat can-and obviously our soldiers need them more.
They are trying to do that with LSAT LMG and assault rifles:
-Cased ammo
-Significant weight decrease
-Different caliber possible
But fielding would be at least 5 years down the line.
That should be:
Cased telescoping and caseless ammo
AAI broshure on LSAT:
http://www.aaicorp.com/pdfs/lsatps09-09-08.pdf
If there is a huge money and profits on mandatory use slingshots then you guys would still be discussing the type of stone, rubber, grip, length of arm, etc to use. Bottom line is there is nothing to do as of the moment but to make do with what you have for combat use.
True-but wheres the fun if we ain't bitchin?
True-but wheres the fun if we ain't complaining?
To the moderator, or all users if these three comments are all posted: Please use the latter post and disregard the former. I recognized a couple of errors and refined my text to enhance my point, if only slightly.
Thank you for your time!
Best,
Michael
Still the silence??? why does Mil.com ignore the facts about the new ammo being given to our troops in the stan?. Yes folks the Army and Marines are getting new ammo the "M855A1" which has been proven to have better ballistics then the 7.62×51 rounds in most cases. Oh i know the 7.62 crowd will flip and say no way but they can just check the facts out and see the military just purchased several million rounds. Come on Mil.com get with it and write up an article about it what is the big deal in not reporting on it??.
Perhaps one way to prevent the shards from becomming soft in the heat of the explosion of the round is to include a layer of water between an explosive core and the glass layer. The water would be vaporized by the blast, but would take some of the heat out of the explosion and convert the heat into explosive mechanical blast energy in order to propell the glass shards to supersonic, and ideally if possible, to hypersonic velocities. A high melting point type of the above subject glass, that has a high latent heat of fusion and vaporization, might make for an outstandingly effective XM-25 size round or perhaps as a RPG round.
Mass issue FN Scar (7.62mm NATO) to ALL US troops (especially Army Infantry and Marine Infantry), use upgraded M14s as well and we will soon see positive results, not just in Afghanistan but worldwide, which is the ultimate goal. Special Forces should NOT be the only ones with the quality weapons, not anymore. Take a good look aroudn the world, foreign militaries, see what their armies are using, and use something BETTER than them, or at least equal but NEVER something inferior. We owe ourselves and our troops (the world`s finest, along with the Brits) that much……………
That's great for making a mess, but it makes cleanup next to impossible. Glass should only be used in durable and semi-durable goods where there is no better alternative (as in glazing, display screens and the like). The problem isn't making things nasty for the bad guys, but in killing them in such a way that innocents don't later suffer. Glass lasts forever; militarizing it would be to create a terrorist weapon / weapon of mass destruction likely to affect non-combatants to a far greater degree than combatants.