Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Small Arms in Iraq: What Worked, What Sucked What a Hoax?

I'm getting this e-mail, about how some small arms are working in Iraq, about fifth-hand. So I can't vouch for its authenticity. But it sounds right to me.

Soldiers, Marines: Is this on-point, or not?

UPDATE 11/18/05: A whole heap of people have written in, saying that the letter's author is either badly misiniformed, or that the whole thing is a hoax. (I'm guessing misinformed, since it's not a first-person account.)

For example, the note says that the Interceptor Body Armor only weighs "6 lbs." To which one reader says:

We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAs with SAPI plates weighs in at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin protection you're back up over 20 pounds.

In response to the item on the "M243 SAW," the same reader notes:

First off, it's the M249 SAW, and it's not drum fed. It's belt fed. Granted, the plastic box magazines the 200 rd belts come in, could be mistaken for a drum magazine by someone who had never seen one before, but I would think that a Marine would know the nomenclature of this weapon.

Decide for yourself.

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX
Sent: XXXXXXXXXX
To: XXXXXXXXX

XXXXX saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions:

2guns_small.JPG1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. XXXXX says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon) [I'm guessing he means this -ed.] : .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

Click here for more, including reviews of the Ma Deuce, and the new body armor.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. XXXX carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!!

Comments

nike shoes,men's nike shoes,women's nike shoes,
nike football shoes,nike shox shoes, men's nike shox, women's nike shox, nike airmax shoes, nike airmax 180, nike airmax 2003, nike airmax 2009, nike airmax 360, nike airmax 87, nike airmax 88, nike airmax 89, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 91, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 95, nike airmax 97, nike airmax tn, nike air stab shoes, nike air yeezy shoes, nike airmax ltd, Air Jordan 1 , Air Jordan 10 , Air Jordan 11 , Air Jordan 11.5, Air Jordan 12 , Air Jordan 13, Air Jordan 14 , Air Jordan 15.5, Air Jordan 16, Air Jordan 17, Air Jordan 18, Air Jordan 19, Air Jordan 2.5, Air Jordan 20+AF1, Air Jordan 23, Air Jordan 24,Air Jordan 25, Air Jordan 3, Air Jordan 4, Air Jordan 4.5+13 Fusion,Air Jordan 5, Air Jordan 6, Air Jordan 6+AF1 Fusion, Air Jordan 7 , Air Jordan 8 , Air Jordan 9, Air Jordan Embroidery 4.5, Air Jordan Fusion 11+23, Air Jordan Fusion 12, Air Jordan Fusion 23, Air Jordan Fusion 5, Air Jordan Gold, Air Jordan Fusion 9, Air Jordan Six Mixed One, Air Jordan Three Mixed One, Air Jordan+Obama 11.5, Jordan Six Rings+Obama, Air Jordan Six Rings 11, Jordan True Flight

Posted by: any at June 25, 2009 02:29 AM


Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 04:00 AM


It was my pleasure to visit your blog. It is really a mirecle to visit your blog in this wide world. And I also have the feeling that it was really a pity that we didn't meet each other earlier. Because the kindness and warmth in your blog can make me completely relaxed and happy. I hope that you will visit my blog too to see if you can have the same feeling.

afake rolex watch replica shoes

http://www.lowestmall.com
http://www.easyforbuy.com
http://www.ecforshop.com
http://www.gomykick.com
http://www.onestoptown.com
http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.watchinstyle.com
http://www.yourshop.cc
http://www.instylewatch.com
http://www.sellbestshoes.com
http://www.buynikeshoes.com
http://www.PICKHANDBAG.COM
http://www.PICKMYWATCH.COM
http://www.PICKTHEBAG.COM
http://www.ROLEXWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.REPLICAWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.wearmyrolexnow.com

Posted by: replicashoes at October 23, 2008 09:35 PM


Later, in January of this year, I have entered into this long hoped for world. Following in their previous game, I have some experience, at first I bought some RF cp to arm my number, so I grew up gradually.

Posted by: rf cp at August 14, 2008 12:18 AM


But where is not your shadow, I do not way one person stay in other parts, although it is also upgrade and earn rohan online gold as the same as with you.

Posted by: rohan online gold at August 14, 2008 12:11 AM


Looking back at the past, in those days, we played together; we have no much rappelz money, we have no need equipment and no senior friends too us, but I am still playing very happy.

Posted by: rappelz money at August 13, 2008 11:58 PM


I always adhere to and keep a distance from everyone. Until now, I did not have a true friend, although I was a lonely, although I did not like the other players that they have many friends send them cheap zeny, I must be rely on myself, at least I will not hurt anybody, and perhaps this is kind of happiness.

Posted by: cheap zeny at August 13, 2008 11:53 PM


In order to accompany me, you do not always upgrade and you own maplestory gold is very least. I know these; you do not say that I also know all.

Posted by: maplestory mesos at August 13, 2008 11:47 PM


Our island adventure, hope for a better, as if the joy of childhood when the growth to continue in pursuit of that future~ can step by step, the development of advanced, it, of our time, the motherland Time, the world’s time, gradually the past, our childhood memory of ~~~ happy time! We have to remember that to purchase maple mesos, to facilitate our task to do!

Posted by: maple mesos at August 8, 2008 11:52 PM


And then click the warehouse to the elderly, he will give you a bear kill “tooth dental knife” (now seems all levels can carry weapons) so you put on it to “gear teeth knife” after the attacks of a very High upgrade, upgrade it easier and more! (Like the goddess role can not be used) of course definitely need Metin2 money!

Posted by: Metin2 money at August 8, 2008 11:51 PM


SMUGGLER and CONTRABANDISTA see the words on the fleet of attack it, get most of gunpowder, shipbuilding would use the gun to the rotation of such arms supplies. In the New World, Many settlers are directed at Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold to; you should also rob the fans, like the Nuggets can be there to European businessmen in exchange for the corresponding material.

Posted by: Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold at August 8, 2008 11:50 PM


On the first point, the metallurgical stone! It also belongs to the category of stone, (and stones, to use the same), consumables, can be used only once!More importantly, it is to 30 points (equivalent to 30 yuan RMB) a, you also can be used to purchase Xiah Gold,And the stones were put forward what 1-2 (Anyway, I was raised to 47 pieces by the explosion goods, but fortunately left hand), only two Whitehead!

Posted by: Xiah Gold at August 8, 2008 11:49 PM


Mr. XXXXX seems to be full of it. I think hes a geek who sits at home and probably plays Americas Army and a few other games lol. A lot of his information is all over the place and somewhat "wishy-washy". However I have talked to a lot of vets from both wars, they state that the M9 is garbage "not enough knock down power", "I shot the guy 4 times and he got right back up and started shooting his ak again". Now for a guy whos enlisting Im not gonna listen to this Mr. XXXXX guy I would advise you to ask your local recruiter lol. Or maybe hop on over to the local Army (and or) Navy Surplus store and if they sell guns there ask them they might know a bit of information or could get their hands on it for you.

Posted by: Ur Nightmare at June 16, 2008 01:16 PM


Here is a interesting article, CZ-52 (CZ vz.52) pistol and Hi-Point 9mm pistol VS concrete rebarred wall.

http://www.survivalebooks.com/concreteversguns.htm

Posted by: Andy at May 17, 2008 06:20 AM


I habe always taken great care in cleaning and maintaining my weapon. The M-16 I had was cleaned better than a hospital floor. It jammed the first two times I fired it in actual combat. I was lucky I could get and still carry that old, heavy, obsolete (unless it is your life on the line) M-14E2. We also have gotten back .45's.
I would suggest that any one who really wants to talk about the great m-16 come out here and use one in combat. In addition I see where we are going to equip the Iraqi's with M-16's. That is terrrific because these guys never clean anything so they will more jams than we do.

Posted by: Sven at February 28, 2008 08:46 AM


THank you Charles for one of the few comments made by someone who knows ANYTHING. I spent 8 years active duty and more as a civilian contractor these include west africa and the middle east. I have never had an m16 jam with ball ammunition. this myth is based on people like the "pow's" from the beginning of this conflict who threw up their arms when confronted and used the "i tried but my gun jammed" excuse for being captured. a problem weve had in many wars in the past. the m9 a piece of crap? please! carry one in combat action for a while, yes when on the teams I chose a .45 but it wasnt just for the caliber hk just makes a damn nice gun (mk23). Dragunov a piece of crap? shoot one! never had the chance to use one in action but did spend time with one at a range and liked what i saw. you people should do a little research IN THE FIELD before trashing our equipment.

Posted by: Michael at December 28, 2007 11:38 AM


I was a first an M1A1 Abrams crewman for 4 years Then moved to the Navy side. I have been an armorer for quite sometime now. I have worked at Crane Naval Weapons Center. We produce and maitain the weapons for the Navy's Seals and SWCC units. What we consider the gunshop doesn't have one 240 or 249 in the house. We do have alot of the M60E4s. Somebody must still like the 60 in some fashion. My big question is about changing the 5.56 for a 7.62. Stupid. Not one person has talked about the recoil and control of a full auto 7.62 rifle. The M14 is a beast to control in full auto. If you want to suppress you bad guys you are better off with your 5.56 for more than one reason. Carry capability for one. Control is a second. Third if you want a compact weapon in 7.62 like the M4 you are more than an idiot. The one gun I love is the HK51. The Monster Truck of machine guns. It does have an 8" barrel the same as an MP5 now that is a difference from the M4 barrel. But good enough for a comparison (Google a video of one). The muzzle blast is ferocious and the recoil is not combat worthy at all. Last of all it is one of the loudest guns you are going to hear. Now put your self in a building you may just rethink your choices. Sound is very important think of why SWAT units and SEAL teams like suppresors (entry teams and house clearers) cause your hearing is important. Not just yours but your buddies and their buddies hearing. A confined full out indore battle will destroy your teams eardrums. The 223 is loud but a 308 at in the same short barrel is going to hurt. I had a 308 with an 18" barrel and it was load as hell. If you think this has no effect on a normal size battle rifle cause I am comparing it to an HK51 well what ever 7.62 platform you are asking for to replace the 5.56 will be made in 3 different sizes Commando, M4, M16 call it what you will. We do make a newer type of M14 there but it has a new stock on it but lets still remember who uses it and its limited purpose for them. The M14 is out there and those who use it probly do love it but it sure is not for everyone. Lets just realize the .223 has a purpose and its not going anywhere. Just be thankful that in these last two wars that we finally came to our senses that the sniper is a wonderful asset and not just some man with mental problems looking through a scope at one man that he wants to just kill. I agree that more grunt teams need a marksman not a sniper qualed member but a marksman with an M14. Let you team member create havock and the M14 can do the rest. Remember AIM,AIM,AIM. Hopefully in your worst case their is an Abrams with in yelling distance. Their is no bigger DOG in the yard. I love what CDAT mentioned, those to words that eveyone forgets or just wants to forget Geneva and Hague. You can armchair us a new caliber all you want but these two words are going to kill your dreams still they get changed.

Posted by: Shellback at December 24, 2006 04:06 PM


Well i am going into the marine corps. dec 5th 2006.Small arms tech is my mos and i hope that i can help fix some of these problems with jamming and maybe we can get the 45's back. even those are for officers it still would help. we can be expected to use pussy 9mm round when they are so uneffective!!!


Posted by: Mark at November 22, 2006 06:27 PM


.223 & M16-developed in the early '60's in anticipation of women in the Armed Forces.It wouldn't do to expect them to carry M 14's would it? Not to put women down, but this is a helluva way to defend the country. This under the "beloved" JFK and his imbecelic SecDef McNamera. Disatrous in Viet Nam, and ditto over all the years through Iraq/Afghanistan. 9mm & M9-nice, moderate recoiling round and reasonably decent handgun. But what was wrong with the M1911? When a .45 ACP hits someone, they actually go down. Somehow I don't think the troops have gotten wimpier...what about the government??

Posted by: Spencer Hendron at November 13, 2006 09:22 PM


experts in wound ballistics, i.e. doctors, have proven the superiority of the .223 vs the .308 cal. rounds. over and over it has been shown to be markedly more effective due to enhanced "yaw" characteristics soon after impact with flesh and bone. of equal value is the proficiency in markmanship and pieces of lead down range that come from using the .223 round. these are all easily demonstrated superior properties as contrasted with the .308......

Posted by: burt at October 20, 2006 12:01 AM


I was based in Iraq 2005 as a civvy contractor. And as an avid reader and shooter I have heard all of these arguments since I was a kid spending my lunch money buying SOF,G&A,Gung Ho, you name it I have read most of these comments before. This is what I will share from the soldiers I had contact with last year.

A)The M-16 was appreciated as was the 5.56 as a fighting tool. I heard no derogatory comments about the M-16 or the M-4. Even the M-4, with Aimpoint,Laser Disignator,Surefire AND 203 isn't as heavy as it looks.

B) The .12 guage is LOVED as a door\lock\jihad buster. Its also appreciated to carry to the D-Fac as the pistol gripped Mossbergs weigh almost nothing.

C) The only troops I heard griping about the M-9 were the folks who couldn't lay hands on one.

D) The 249, 240's and the .50's are all loved by the users I spoke with.

E) I saw a total of 3 M-60's in Iraq all mounted.
I also spotted 1 Hummer with a Mini-Gun mounted topside. I bet Johnny Jihad wasn't expecting that !!!

I was based on LSA Anaconda and Camp Victory. I worked on many camps including Anaconda, North and South Victory, Slather, Striker, Pioneer, Cropper and the RCP.

The most professional troops I had contact with other than SOCOM\SF were the Hawaiian Reserves. ALOHA guys !!

Posted by: Chuk at September 2, 2006 04:21 PM


Uh. Right. Let's see..
The Dragunov is 7.62x 54, rimmed Russian round, commonly used for the Mosin Nagant 91/30 sniper bolt guns that you find with the white trash class of down and out jihadists who can't afford a really good piece of throwaway Combloc Junk ordnance, although any gun will kill you if you stand still and no, you can't out run a 7.62 Dragunov any more than a 7.62 M14/M1A/ M21 Sniper rifle. .American/NATO .308 is 3 (three) MM shorter in the overall casing length than the rimmed Dragunov rifle round, and both are approximately 7.62 caliber. Nuff said.
M9 Beretta, okay gun, big and the 9mm sucks wang next to a .45 but it's a darned sight better than nothing at all. Nuff said. .45 is better.
M249 SAW...high rpm rate .223, but the newest version of the old m60, with a reversible gas plug you can't put in backwards and screw up, and without that stupid plug wiring garbage to deal with beats the m240 in trials and weighs ten pounds less. The SEALS are gearing up for new model 60s and not the 240, go figure.
Anyway, I got out years ago, worked as an armorer, and I like the .45 pistol, the m1/m14, the m60 in its newest from and think the Beretta m9 is just to big for any round smaller than the .45. Cram 12 .45 rounds into that same big junker and hand that to atrooper and see if he doesn't say thanks and it's a big improvement...bigger bullets are better bullets, regardless of the caliber...ragheads on opium? Hard to believe, next thing you'll be telling me is they'd rather kill their neighbors and blow up children than rebuild their friggin country...I just wouldn't know how to take the news...NOT.

Posted by: newz2me28792 at August 29, 2006 09:28 PM


futer naval ships, like the LSV-1X

Posted by: Charles Wise at August 10, 2006 01:08 AM


Based on my experience in Iraq this is my opinions on some of the weapons used:
M2: Worth it's weight in gold
M249: Great potential, however the M249E were a lot more practical in the urbun enviroments
M-4:Great Weapon, the versitilaty that it allows lets you tailor the weapon to the mission.As to the claims that it jams easily, well true, However mine never jammed, and won't if your religous about maintenance. As to the claims I read about someone "putting 30 rounds into a person and them falling back slowly" I cry BULLS#!t. You really need to work on your shooting skills. I never used burst, fired in controlled pairs and NEVER had to re-engage a target.The 5.56mm rounds will put a person down quick, you have to have good shot placement though.
M9: Same thing, keep clean, fire in controlled pairs.First 2 rounds to the chest, if there still standing next 2 to the pelvic girdle. Does the job every time.
SHOTGUNS: Golden.Would have one avalible for every team. Especially usefull for the 1 man on entry.
And this last little bit is personal and aimed at Ex 19delta. Your full of it. You said you were a sniper and don't know what the cal on a druganov is, BS! Your talking about dodging rounds fron a druganov if you hear the first round hit, BS!30 rounds into a target, PLEASE! Give me a break, 7.62 is a .30 cal weapon, Nobody can dodge a bullet.If the sniper is anygood they don't get a chance to try.And this I know.I had to learn about the druganov and I used one in Iraq. The M24 is hands down a better weapon, but with 11 kills with a Druganov, I can attest to it's effectiveness.Same with the M4,I've seen how effective it can be. When you quite playing as a soldier, and get some real world knowledge come back and post an intelligent debate based on first hand experience.

Posted by: charles at July 16, 2006 01:31 PM


Honestly, becuase the marine's father typed this email, I believe it was just miscommunication or typo's that led to the things about the M249 being called the M243, and the body armor weighing six pounds. I am not a soldier myself, but I do know a lot about the weapons we, and they, use.

Personally I'd love to hear more about the other weapons they use, and the future M-16 replacement, which I think is going to be the M-8 but if I am incorrent someone please comments.

And to all the men and women overseas i have respect for what you are doing, and I'm sicking of seeing b.s. on the news where they misinform people who don't know much about the war. Honestly, the only person in news I trust is Anderson Cooper.

Posted by: Grey Dodds at July 15, 2006 01:20 PM


Gentleman:

It's NOT how big your dick, weapon or bullet is. But rather, it's what the enemy DOESN'T have that should scare you.

Unfortunately, the enemy is mostly poor and don't have (as much) as we westerners have? But, they are crafty and resourceful and they'll wait to kill you when you'd least expect it ?

Such as, on the way to the "football field" (or battlefield). You should be more worried about a roadside bomb or ambush (IED?) blowing up your chariot or, an RPG blowing up your helicopter's ass, than winning or losing an artillery battle.

Therefore, the best way to survive in Iraq or Afganistan is to leave the Humvee, Lav-2 or G-wagon at home and drive a Winnibago (RV?) to your next camping or hunting spot.

Mounting a Gatlin gun on the roof of your "RV" is the ultimate equalizer and will make up for any difficiencies in range, shooting accuracy of user, sand, or whatever.



Posted by: RJ at May 8, 2006 06:25 AM


Well I spent a whole 30round from my M-4 at this mother fucker and All He did was twitch and slowly fell back.Talk about some bullshit. I was a Mk-19 gunner on a humvee, and would bungeecord a 240bravo mach gun to the hatch. That 240 bravo is the best weapon the military has and Yes it's a 308. I was on the sniper team and if You want to reach out and fuck someone it's the 308 that will do it. Whats the dragunov, a 7.62 by 54? Well every time I was shot at with one of those or heard other peoples after tells if You hear an impact You can out manuver a dragunov but not a 308.I tell You what if You want a bad mother fucter rifle-M14 or M1a1. I got the M1A1 because of the match grade barrel good up to 2000 rounds and even then Its beter than the bullshit barrels we had in iraq.

Posted by: Ex 19delta CraysE at March 28, 2006 02:22 PM


I MISSED THE GULF WAR SCENES AND HAVE DECIDED TO POST THIS COMMENT ABOUT THE AR16: IT WAS NO GOOD IN VIET NAM AND STILL PERSIST AS A WEAPON THAT BASICALLY IS A THROWDOWN ESPECIALLY IF AN AK47 WAS AVAILABLE. WHAT TO DO? THE GUN DOES'T KNOCK DOWN ANYTHING-THE CAL IS TOO SMALL AND THE SPEED TOO FAST. TO IMPROVE THE GUN TO A WORLD CLASS KILLER ,I THINK THE CALIBER NEEDS TO BE INCREASED TO AT LEAST 308 SIZE, A MUZZLE BREAK AND A 308 WSM TYPE BULLET THAT CAN BE STACKED TO DOUBLE THE BULLET MAGAZINE W/O INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE MAGAZINE MUCH. IF THE GUN WEIGHTS MORE , THAN HAVE THE MARINES DO SOME SPECIFIC EXERCISES( WEIGHT TRAINING ) TO COMPENSATE.
THE ADVANTAGES: LARGER CAL(MORE KILL POWER) , ARMOR PIERCING CAPABILITIES W/O BULLET DISTRUCTION. A GUN THAT IS BETTER MANUFACTURED THAN THE AK49, MUCH MORE DURABLE DUE TO THE LACK OF EXCESS POWDER BEING BLOWN INTO THE BARREL(CHARACTERISTIC OF WSM TYPE BULLETS) AND SNIPER ACCURACY.

Posted by: RON MARTINO at March 15, 2006 10:11 AM


Ya i will have to say I kinda like the m-16 and from what I can find it isnt the best but it is still up there on the top of the pack. And i thought the saw was spoosed to be reliably to a good degree. Those first 2 in the list are way out there, however i would like to see the next rifle we use to be in the 7.62 cal.

Posted by: Douglas at March 8, 2006 01:58 PM


I spent almost half of my five years in the desert so when i say, if your weapon jams its because the operator was a piece of shit not the gun, you can take my word for it. I have taken my M16, pulled back the bolt, filled the chamber with sand, and ran the bolt back and forth to get all the sand in there nice and neat. Witout cleaning the weapon i the chambered a round and fired, and fired out the rest of my magazine. To ensure the continuos operation of any medium to small arms weapon get a tube of heavy guns lube (i cant remember the name of it) or you might have heard it called gun cum. One application will keep you going for at least three months and you wont have to clean your weapon. (although its beast to maintain your weapon every chance you get)

Posted by: Cpl Thomas usmc at February 23, 2006 09:14 AM


No one mentions the new? multi blend bullets thathave not so far been approved the procurment folks. It is a shame they are not in production as they appear to be the answer to a maidens prayer.Several articles available on the net,and yet no yelling. Would drastically inprove the take down ratios and are designed for tissue distruction,especially for th 5.56 natos.Several configurations including non lethal.Does any one care about the guys in the pointy part ofthis war or is it once more politics and bucks first?

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2006 02:31 AM


Hi im a SGT in the british army and am trying to find a picture of a m16A2 and came aross this site i think that your M16's especialy the newer models are great having had to go on operations with the SA80 A1 and more recently with the SA80 A2 i and others felt a little aprehensive. the A1 was prone to stoppages all the time and was a peice of shit the A2 however was a lot better but weighs twice what the demarco weighs so just wanted to say that you are very lucky for the weaponry you have

Posted by: Andy at January 25, 2006 02:04 PM


Has anybody determined where this piece originated?

Posted by: Joe Hewlett at January 9, 2006 07:35 AM


It seems that what I have read here this evening is not good news. Or else it is pure Bushwah. I did my stretch during Viet Nam and we went through some changes then, in fact some of the changes are still with you guys now. When I went through basic at Ft Ord Calif. we carried M1 Garands, it weighed a ton and shot like a dream but it was slow by todays standards and so they began to look for a round that produced more kinetic energy which equals more cyclic speed. Also less weight. The M14 was the apparent answer, but when they handed them out, I was shocked by the flimsy feel of the top hand guard and the over all look of the rifle. You could break off the flash hider with your hands. (After carrying the M1 anything would feel flimsy) It took a couple of years before I decided the M14 was ok. But then they switched to the AR16 the Stoner system was good, but I believe they hurried it into production before all the bugs were out which means the rifle has em. (BUGS) The military is touchy about such things as modification to their weapons but I think that if you are given a rifle to protect your life and it needs work, someone isn't doing their job and it's the grunt who gets screwed.
But for you guys who want to upgrade your Colt/Armalite whatever, there is a barrel available with fast twist rifling that helps stabilize that little bullet and makes it a lot more accurate. It may even become a tack driver with care and practise. Look for the match barrels by Colt I think they are all bull barrels, that is, they are straight cut barrels and not wider and thinner in spots like the issue barrels. I reckon there are other people out there who can help more than I can, but they don't care more. Be careful brothers and sons, and watch out for each other. Be a team.
God be with you. Gunslinger

Posted by: TOGunslinger at January 7, 2006 01:52 AM


Background I'm an ex-sapper so my personal weapon was just another tool of the trade.
That said in 22 years in the servivice I had cause to carry in 'for real' situations.

Pistol, carried a 9mm, was for last ditch personal protection; they get that close you screwed up. Double tap did just fine thank you. Be nicer to use jacketeed hollow point (way more leathal than .45ACP) but not for the military.

Rifle wise was trained in the era of 7.62 mm NATO and the FAl/SLR was he most soldier proof but the G3 had the edge in sand. Wasn't convinced with the 5.56mm, Matel M16 toys :-) Turned out they were easier to shoot, so close hit (7.62mm) to dead centre (5.56mm) made me a beliver; still think the 7.62mm weapons where better designed for ease of use.

On the GPMG/SAW topic both the M240 and M249 are good solid reliable weapons. The current fad for adding 'bells and whistles' to everything doesn't help on the weight side. M240 is not much heavier than on M14 but can seriously wreck your day. M249, Ok it a beast to lug around (especially if you don't get to us it) but it will stop the bad guy from interrupting your day. Like al belt fed weapons they not happy with dirt but re-cock and go on.

Shotguns , where n my experience only usefull on a robot to bast as suspect packaage. They as bad as pistols from the point that the baddie was way to close :-)

As a section commander I was taught to call on mortar (or artillery), which was always the first choice if you could see them before they saw you. Which is as close to sniping as I ever got :-)


The 'but they never went down' call is usually the result of missing the target in the heat of combat. It has been the cry from the first military musket and will be heard in 3010 about the latet 'new' personal weapon some head in procurment has given you.

Posted by: Russ M at December 4, 2005 05:27 PM


Hm...for 22 years, I've been assuming 30 round mags held 30 rounds, and 20 round mags held 20, and that's what I've done and shot. Do I fail?

Stoner's been dead for some time, but guess what? A great many rifles out there, including the XM8 (now dead) are variations of his designs. The G36 is, the L85 (ptuh!) is.

Dunno, I guess everyone in the units I've been in, and I talk to, are all doing something wrong...our weapons work.

Former Marine who just came back from a stint with Blackwater told me he blew his M4 out with an airhose once a week and never had a single malfunction. My father in law was a grunt in 'nam. No problem. A friend was arty CO with an XM177, no problem. Dave Drake had no problems.

Please! Someone tell me what we're doing wrong! Our weapons are WORKING!

Posted by: Mike Williamsop at December 4, 2005 03:11 AM


The problems the Army created for the M16 in 1965 with mismatched propellant and no cleaning kits are 40 years old. The weapon is superb. If you are having problems with it, either you or your armorer are doing something wrong.

In 22 years, I've shot the M16, M16A1, M16A2, GAU, M4, Cav Arms, Olympic Arms, H&R, Colt, Armalite, Bushmaster, PWA and a dozen others. I've shot it buried in sand, in arctic conditions, in dusty grass. I've shot it three days dirty. I've shot 1500 rounds through in a day, the front sight hot enough to cause burns, so it took three days of acetone to clean. Virtually no problems. I have 20 years of expert ratings and several trophies WITH A BONE STOCK H&R CONTRACT M16A1. A poor craftsman always blames his tools. I agree with the Marine armorer above. And 5.56 mm has as much energy at 500m as a .45 does at the muzzle. So if a .45 is good enough, so is 5.56. But I'm willing to put it to a test. So take your weapon of choice 500 m downrange and we'll swap rounds. Oh, yeah---I get to shoot first. Fair?

More energy is not necessarily better. ANY hit with ANYTHING in a critical area is lethal (Heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, central nervous system). Otherwise, you're depending on trauma or blood loss. A hole is a hole. For most engagements, US 5.56mm has better traumatic effects than US 7.62. (German and Swede 7.62 are far better, but we don't get issued those.)

Many of the "he didn't go down" complaints are because no grunt will EVER admit that he didn't make a perfect one-shot center of mass every time. Also, 10-15 seconds to die is a LONG time, but happens with any weapon. Bob Dole took 8 hits of German 8mm in WWII. I guess it's a failure, because he's still around. Let's go back to .69 smoothbore! THERE was a manstopper!

Surgeons from Vietnam report that wounds from 7.62X39 Russian could be treated and have the troop up in a matter of days, but 5.56mm wounds could cause two weeks or more incapacitance, for similar hits. Make of that what you will.

In sand, the gas system of the AR can, in fact, blow the weapon clean in some cases, where a piston operation will jam.

The M14s the Green Beanies and snipers are using are VERY CUSTOMIZED and shot by experts. Apples and oranges to compare them to stock M16s. Let me bring _MY_ custom AR and we'll talk. (And the AR is currently stomping the M14 and Garand in Service Rifle competition at Camp Perry.)

The Barrett has a 1500 round barrel life and 3 moa accuracy. It's an anti-materiel weapon primarily.

I've never seen an "M243 Squad Assault Weapon" fed from drums. I've seen an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon fed from belts or boxes. You CAN put a Beta C-mag on it, but the Cmag has problems.

Look, the AR has been in service longer than ANY OTHER RIFLE in the US. The M14 had the SHORTEST lifespan, because per its own design criteria, it was a piece of crap. It's a fine rifle. It cost 3X as much as the previous fine rifle (The Garand) and did nothing the Garand wouldn't already do. It failed to replace the BAR or M3, both of which it was supposed to do, and was, and still is, hard to produce. The AR was picked up ALMOST AT ONCE by the Special Forces, the SEALs, the SAS, etc. Many are now switching to a G36 variant, which is a mod of the AR18, also by Eugene Stoner, and basically an improved version of the AR15.

From reading this, you'd think we were fighting with stone axes. Sheesh.

Posted by: Mike Williamson at December 4, 2005 03:02 AM


The Israelis are adopting a replacement for the M-16. It also uses 5.56mm ammunition, so apparently they don't have a problem with it.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at November 22, 2005 03:01 PM


im going into field artillery and i dont particularly like the m-16a1 carbin or the regulare m-16. i want to know if i could buy a difrent gun or if i would be able to trade it in or what because iv had some problems with jamming in the gun range and i would rather have a better gun. Plus the .223 round isnt going to bring sombody down unless you hit them above the torso. so write back and tell me if you know anything.

futer marine,
andrew bozza

Posted by: andrew bozza at November 22, 2005 10:30 AM


Gents, first, I'll establish my credentials: I am a Marine armorer, and I served in that capacity in Al Anbar province in Iraq last year. I've had three years in the corps thus far, but the majority of my opinions are gleaned from the men I work with who have been in since before I was born.
First, the M16 series has really gotten a bad rap. It is no longer the abhorrent weapon it was in the 70s and 80s. The M16A4 and M4A1 really work well even in dusty conditions. Proper maintenance will keep them going through thousands of rounds without malfunction. Now, you an't always break down your rifle and clean in in combat, but we are trained to at least dust it off during any lulls in the fighting. We clean weapons before we do anything else, including eat.
The 5.56 is sufficient for killing purposes. The story of it being far too weak has been blown out of proportion. Most of the stories about men taking many hits are usually exaggerations or based on other circumstances: drug use by the enemy, hits are not center mass (not in a lethal area of the body), or the man had armor underneath his robes (yes, I have seen this once or twice). While the carbine does offer a lower muzzle velocity than the rifle, it is designed to be used in closer quarters where that won't matter quite as much. While I would love to see a change to a 6.5mm or 6.8mm round, I don't think it's at all critical or a high priority. And a change to 7.62 would not be popular.
As far as M9 pistols are concerned, the pistol itself is fine, quite an excellent peice of work. It may be wise to begin switching to a more modern model as the old pistols near the end of thier service lives, but the M9 fills it's role perfectly. The magazines do have a tendancy to be weak and jam; though this can be solved through some time consuming maintenance on the magazine itself (the same goes for m16 magazines). I have to chew out men for stretching thier springs instead of just dusting the mags.
The 9mm round is much in the line of the 5.56mm debate, but not quite to the same degree. I think few people would be sad to see every 9mm replaced with a .45 caliber. But, the 9mm is sufficiently adequete for it's role (which is only as a backup weapon, BTW).
Shotguns: love them! give me a Benelli m1014 or Mossberg and I will kiss you. Marines love using them for urban room clearing and breaching operations. Not so great at a distance, but that is why you have your rifle nearby.
The m249 is an excellent fireteam level weapon. The only downside I found is that the stock has a tenancy to get a lttle loose, and that using magazines instead of belt fed will jam it. The light machinegun and squad automatic roles are filled perfectly by the m240B/G and m249 SAW, respectively. The only time I have ever seen an m60 was mounted on a vehicle belonging to some reservist Navy Seabees, and they had some very old equipment.
If anybody ever had a problem with a m2 .50 cal, it's because it was aimed at them. I had ma deuces that were in use in Vietnam (with woden grips still) and shot fine. Training is what is needed to overcome the problems with headspace and timing (which is why we issue the guages with the guns), was not a problem at all in my battalion.
Sniper rifles are a subject I cannot speak intelligently on, since we did not have any. Nor any of the anti-armor or mortar weapons (we are not grunts).

Posted by: LCpl Ski at November 21, 2005 10:54 PM


I don't know too much on the MGs, but SOF (i.e., the people who sometimes expect to do their own fighting with a pistol) is buying a lot of 45s, and the SEALs frequently use the M-14, *especially in cold weather*.

Posted by: Ed at November 21, 2005 12:31 PM


18 for the 20, 28 for the 30, unless you like performing failure to feed drills.

Posted by: JSAllison at November 21, 2005 11:53 AM


If only you Americans hadn't bullied Britain into dropping its 7mm round for the EM-2 back in the 1950's we'd all be happy now....

Posted by: Hans at November 20, 2005 09:37 PM


to bob,

i've heard some comments on inserting full 30 rounds into a 30rd magazine causes jam. so i guess they are talking about solutions for that issue :)

Posted by: vintec at November 20, 2005 10:40 AM


my m16 mags hold 30 rounds and my 20 round mags hold 20 rounds so i dont know what your talking about

Posted by: bob at November 20, 2005 02:58 AM


Ah,
So I'd assume the troops in vietnam were at a great disadvantage, as the enemy could have a gun with twice the rounds in it (unless you wouldnt put as many as advirtised into a 30 round AK magazine.
Bren gun magazines will only hold 28/30 if you want them to not likely jam.

Posted by: Matt at November 20, 2005 01:01 AM


Good Evening Matt,

Answers to trick questions: 30Rd. Mag, 28Rds new, 25 for an "older used" magazine.

For the 20 Rounder 16Rds. period.

In response, it all depends on the brick and range. At a 100 meters I doubt that eather rifle could hit the brick using only it's iron sights.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 19, 2005 11:13 PM


Oh, and by the way, what were the answers to the trick questions?

I have heard in Vietnam, an m16 round shot at a brick would make a neat through hole in it, while an AK47 round would blast the brick apart.

Posted by: Matt at November 19, 2005 08:32 PM


Good Morning CDAT,

Thanks for your timely and well thought response to my post. Although it appears to me that we agree on most issues here I do have what may be a couple of update to the dicussion to add.

The M-60 is back into production at a company called U.S. Ordnance in Reno. Nv. they are operating under licence from Saco Defence Industries of Saco Main which is a unit of General Dynamics. The current production is for the M-60E4 a GPMG and the M-60D which is uses on aircraft, re. UN-60 Blackhawks.

Open orders have been placed by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard all in the area of $5.5 Million. It has also been speculated that orders have been place by Spec. Ops., but this is not public information.

The M-60 as you suggest is not going to replace the M-240B/G's or even the M-249's but it does have a nitch place with in combat units as an assualt weapon that the other two can't fill.

As for the M1911 .45 ACP the Army has placed orders with Sprinffield and H&K (Beretta) for new weapons.

On april 30, the U.S.Navy, re. U.S. Marines place an order with Glock for 10K Glock 37's in the .45GAP. This order has been filled and a follow up is pending in the new 2005/2006 budget. It appears the the Marines have given up on the WWII vintage M1911's finally.

Of course the M9 9mm is still in use but by there actions the Army and Marines don't consider it a combat weapon but more a symbol of authority to quote Ret. U.S.M.C. Jeff Cooper a "Guns and Ammo" colomunist.

As a closing note I have taken into and used in combat in Vietnam both the M1911 and the M-60 GPMG. Neither are perfect and the M-60 especially required several user installed modifications in order to perform to expectations.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 19, 2005 01:08 PM


the problems with M9 is the military issue magazines that causes jams and many troopers used police issue magazines to solve the problem

just curious, the 5.56 rounds have seen development from m855 to NATO SS109 but the 7.62 rounds are still using the same technology. are there any interests in improving the over-50-year-old rounds? but i know the recoil of 7.62 is a pain to handle compare to 5.56

Posted by: vintec at November 18, 2005 09:37 PM


A response to a few things Byron said in his reply:

"The problems with the M-240B is that it fires to fast, doesn't like dirty ammo and is to da** heavy. The old M-60 doesn't have these problems and units like the 82ed. Abn. have gone back to it."

FALSE. 1) Because few if any of the Active Duty troops in Iraq have ever seen an M60, let alone carried one, the M240 is compared with the M249 (a case of apples and oranged if ever there was one). No gun likes dirty ammo. For most crew served weapons, this is not a problem because the ammo is kept in a can or crate and not exposed to the elements; the M249 even has a handy plastic carrier for its belts. The problem is that the vast numbers of grunts carrying the dismounted version (M240Bs for the Army and M240Gs for the Marines) do not have a good way to carry their ammo. They are forced to carry exposed belts, and those belts get dirty. As a side note, every vehicle mounted M240 I saw in Iraq worked like a champ, while the M60s I saw (all mounted, by the way) were often down for maintainence.

The issue of weight between the M60 and M240 is also misleading. From the factory, the M240G is less than one pound heavier than the M60, and the M240B less than four pounds heavier. Weight becomes an issue because the M240 is being carried with thermal, low-light and/or telescopic sights and various types of lasers pointers attached. All told, these devices can add ten pounds or more. Because the M60 requires special modifications to mount such devices it will weigh less...but will also be significantly less capable.

In the last 12 years I have never, EVER seen an Army or Marine unit (or an individual Soldier or Marine) willingly turn in an M240 in favor of an M60. Not once. I can personally attest to the fact the the 1/501st PIR, 82d Abn had ZERO M60s assigned to it while deployed to Iraq. I have seen units and individuals go from M240s to M249s with varying levels of willingness...but that's another apples to oranges comparison.


"As to the use of shotguns in combat, no thanks, reloading in a fire fight can be a real bitch."

Fine. Let me carry it. The guys on my team fought to carry our two Mossbergs, and every infantry squad as well as quite a few of the tanks operating in my area had one more of them as well. A lot of them had pistol gips only and were carried in addition to an M4; they were just used as breaching tools. Others, like the ones I had, were carried instead of a rifle. I would not rely on them as heavily if I was in Afghanistan, or in the far west of Iraq, but they served me well in both Fallujah and Ramadi (neither of which was quiet while I was there).

"The WWI vintage M1911 .45ACP is being reissued but not the old worn out one in storatage but new purchase. The Marines have decided to go a different way and adopt the .45GAP handguns."

FALSE. Most of the issued USMC M1911A1s are old pistols that have been handpicked and rebuilt by the armorers at Quantico. The Army M1911A1s in use by line units also came from long term storage; only the SF teams and their support units have commercially purchased weapons.

The Marines have not adopted .45 GAP, or .44 Magnum or .40 Smith & Wesson...or any other caliber for that matter. They are using 9mm, .45 ACP and a handful of .38 Special weapons just like every other DoD component. After all, the Marines don't have the legal authority to choose the caliber of weapon systems on their own; those decisions are made by DoD lawyers and procurement personnel to ensure they are in compliance with the Geneva and Hague conventions, Federal acquisition laws and Joint Service testing procedures.

Posted by: CDAT at November 18, 2005 05:43 PM


To answer Alex,

Speaking with a friend in the marines recently back from Iraq, his exact words were:

I hit the guy 3 times in the chest and he still wouldnt go down, if he hadnt crashed the motorcycle he would have gotten away. I told my guys to go for headshots after that.

Posted by: Jordan at November 18, 2005 04:08 PM


Just another Civilian, here, but on e who reads Jane's Defence Weekly...
The M-16 might have a problem with Desert Sand, but so does most everything else...
I think the AK-47 is a bit more robust, from what I've heard, though.
The problem with the ammo is less with the M-16 (though the enemy has no respect for it, and that's a problem even if they're wrong), but with the M-4 Carbine...
Yup, those Picatinny rails are real nice, but the shorter barrel length means less Muzzle Velocity, and the whole trade-off between the 5.56 and the 7.62 depends on a higher velocity for the smaller round to have decent stopping power...
The article I saw was talking about some new 'mid-way' ammo types (something in between 6 and 7 mm) that showed promise.
Yes, the old M-14, and 7.62 mm NATO had it's advantages, especially if you didn't have to lug it around all day...
but, if the Pentagon is going to make you carry around 70 lbs. of gear, anyways, what's the big deal with a rifle weighing a few pounds more?

I'm also interested in the HK MP-7 SMG/Personal defense weapon...
Short range, yes, but it's supposed to go right through Soviet-era Body armor with ease...
I wonder how it does in stopping power, against unarmored targets?

Posted by: William A. Peterson at November 18, 2005 03:58 PM


The same letter inspired a flurry of comments on my blog (SurvivalBlog.com), including a couple of detailed disections of the letter. The DefenseTech readers might enjoy seeing all of the comments posted there.

Posted by: Jim Rawles at November 18, 2005 03:30 PM


The complaints about the 5.56 round are suspiciously similar to the ones made by armchair commandos worldwide. I have quite a few friends who have seen action in Iraq, and not one of them had any complaints about the 5.56 round aside from personal preferences. Conversely, their complaints with the M9 weren't about the 9mm round, but the gun itself.

Posted by: Alex at November 18, 2005 02:25 PM


Good Morning Noah,

Most of the information you give here is not new. The AR operating system of the M-16 and M-4 are still jamming just as they were 39 years ago for me. The AR operating system without a gas piston is flawed, great on the range but in combat it sucks and jams. The problem is that Eugene Stoner is considered in the Pentagon to be a genus, the grunts out in the field are just idoits who won't keep their weapons clean.

Comments regarding the M-249 that I've seen say that electrical ties should be issues with the weapon so that when the rivet that holds the trigger assembly to the receiver falls out and is lost there will be a way to secure it to the weapon and of course accuracy is still a problem. The problems with the M-240B is that it fires to fast, doesn't like dirty ammo and is to da** heavy. The old M-60 doesn't have these problems and units like the 82ed. Abn. have gone back to it.

As to the use of shotguns in combat, no thanks, reloading in a fire fight can be a real bitch. The 115gr. 9mm round on the M-9 has had the mentioned problem since WWI and the only thing the same about the "M-14" now being issued and that of the M-14 of the '50's is the flash suppressor, I think. The rest, including the ammo is new.

The 5.56 ammo even the current 62gr. round still lacks therm power, has only 950 lbs. at 100 meters while the 7.62 still has 1100 lbs. at 300 meters. Black Hills is developing a .77gr. round that is susposte to deal with this problem, it is currently being tested by the Marines at Camp Lejeune.

More on military ammo can be found in Shot Gun News in articles by David M. Fortier. he is arrogant a** hole in his style but he knows his sh** so I guess he has to be tolerated.

The thumbs up for the M2HB is mixed, the guys/gals keep blowing out the recievers to the point that "new" ones had to be ordered. The problem is mostly with setting the headspace when the barrel is reinstalled, many seem to forget. The .50 Cal. sniper rifles are still a work in progress, they lack accuracy out past 1000 meters to be effective but the "New" M-107 and new ammo from Black Hills along with more training is expected to solve the problems.

The WWI vintage M1911 .45ACP is being reissued but not the old worn out one in storatage but new purchase. The Marines have decided to go a different way and adopt the .45GAP handguns.

What hasn't been mentioned is the Javlin. When fired at a building it tends to go after parked cars, it's the IR signature. The Marines have left them home after there first deployment to Iraq.

Over all Noah I think that you got it prett much correct the first time. Me thinks that those "whole heap of people(s)" might be our friends over at the DoD flooding you with E-Mails. This is information they may not like being dicussed by the likes of me.

This happened early in the war when problems started being exposed and all of a sudden a flood of posts came from the 101st. Abn. Div. defending polcy. They were all plants by the Dod. If you recall the Pentagon got busted on that one.

Now for the trick questions of the day:
1. How many rounds does a 30 rd. Magazine for the M-16 hold?

2. How many rounds does a 20Rd.magazine for the M-16 hold?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 18, 2005 02:15 PM


Erg...no HREF links apparently. The Stars & Stripes article I refer to above is at http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=9316&archive=true

Posted by: Edward Liu at November 18, 2005 12:05 PM


Are comments back?

Whether the article is a hoax or not, I find it interesting to see where the info intersects with other info that came to light after Afghanistan operations. http://www.geocities.com/usarmyafghangearproblems/
has images from a PowerPoint presentation that I recognize (scroll down about halfway down the page -- stupid frames). I thought I saw it linked to here, but I can't seem to find it now. It says a lot of the same stuff about the M-16/M-4 and 5.56mm round, and the M-9/9mm round. I believe this article in Stars & Stripes covers the M-9 results specifically, but refers to the same "Lessons Learned" report.

I'm just an interested civilian with no military experience at all, so forgive the almost total ignorance in the following questions. Isn't the real problem with the "green tip" 5.56mm round that it is designed to penetrate body armor rather than inflict straight-up soft-tissue damage? This is a great idea when you're expecting your enemy to be a Soviet soldier who's wearing a flak jacket, but a pretty rotten one when the enemy is an insurgent or a militiaman with little more than a rifle and the clothes on his back. And how do the current reports of the inadequacy of 5.56mm round work with the reports of "small bullet big hole" from the Vietnam-era M-16 (once they figured out that yes you need to clean your weapon and hammered out the issues they had with changing the gunpowder in the ammo)?

I'm asking because I'm still not entirely convinced by the crowd clamoring for a return to 7.62mm rifles or a changeover to 6.8mm, as though changing ammo will solve all the problems we face. I'm not saying it won't (see above about my own near-total ignorance), but I'd like to see more or better evidence that mass change is a Good Idea.

Posted by: Edward Liu at November 18, 2005 12:04 PM


Does it surprise me to hear that the McNamara-inspired acquisition methodologies are flawed and have provided us flawed product? Nope, they've pretty much been concerned with process over product. I suspect that the bottom line could be that in developing small arms we need fewer flag rank joint service chair warmers and more input from the folk that'll actually use the items. JSSAP(?) could have chosen to stick with the M1911A1 but once you get all those high paychecks together, something has to change. No one gets kudos (promotions, gewgaws, choice assignments) for sticking with the status quo.

Posted by: JSAllison at November 16, 2005 09:53 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.