Fox News Gets It Wrong: M4 Rifle Works Fine; the Problem Is the Cartridge
The death of the M4 has been greatly exaggerated.
A bizarre Fox News article appeared last Wednesday: “M4 vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?“:
Despite the ages-old rifles in Taliban hands, reports suggest our soldiers may be outgunned in Afghanistan’s hills. To counter, the Army plans a slew of upgrades to curtain weapons — and several entirely new guns.
AdvertisementTaliban fighters in Afghanistan are attacking U.S. Army soldiers with AK-47s, while the army relies upon the M4 assault rifle. The AK-47 uses a larger bullet, which leads to more kickback upon firing. Some reports indicate that the U.S. Army is looking to upgrade the weapons being used in Afghanistan to larger caliber guns.
An AP report published over the weekend in Army Times argued that the M4 rifle’s light bullets lack sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights. The report states that the U.S. is considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round, one largely discarded in the 1960s.
…
The 7.62mm round in the AK-47 is heavier and larger than the 5.56mm caliber bullet in the M4, and can therefore fly further on average. But Battaglini dismisses reports that the Army is considering rearming soldiers in Afghanistan. “On the battlefield, there are no reported operational issues with the M4. It’s the weapon of choice in Iraq, and still the desired weapon in Afghanistan,” he told FoxNews.com.
Anyone reading the article would come to the conclusion that rusty AK-47s give the poorly trained Taliban an advantage over U.S. troops armed with M4 carbines, M16 rifles, and M249 machine guns firing 5.56 NATO rounds. It is a supposition based upon ignorance of the battlefield, the training, and the weapons and cartridges themselves. Other than that, the article is fine.
Much of the combat taking place in mountainous Afghanistan occurs at much longer ranges than U.S. soldiers have encountered in recent wars, and engagements at ranges in excess of 500 meters are not uncommon. Obviously, at these extended ranges the marksmanship of the combatants is of vital importance to their effectiveness. Poorly trained combatants will not hit their targets with frequency, and may not even pose enough of a threat to keep their opposition pinned down. In this type of combat, a weapon needs to be reliable and accurate, and fire a cartridge that retains energy, is relatively flat-shooting, and is resistant to wind drift.
Author Jeremy A. Kaplan does get some details of his story correct.
The AK-47 fires a 7.62 bullet that is larger and heavier than that of the 5.56 round in most of the Army’s M4s, and the weapon does have considerably more recoil. The M4′s 5.56 round does lack killing power at long range, due to a combination of the M4′s shortened barrel generating lower velocities and the 5.56 round being heavily dependent upon velocity to function effectively.
Despite these truths, the M4 is not inherently inferior to the AK-47. It is simply a product of different methodologies in making weapons and in training soldiers.
I think the author meant to type the word “retraining” instead of “retaining”.
Also, I read “somewhere on the internet” that the 6.8mm SPC is only marginally better than the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. I’ve heard some of those same detractors recommend the 6.5mm Grendel. This fan site for the round really makes it look good, though I wouldn’t know if it is the answer for our infantry: http://www.65grendel.com/ Here’s the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel
Or our military could switch to another rifle that uses the 5.56mm NATO and work on optimizing the cartridge to maximize its usefulness. And then all this won’t matter when our servicemen and women get their hands on the first generation electrothermalchemical (ETC)/rail or coil/LASER/plasma rifles.
I think the author meant to type the word “retraining” instead of “retaining”.
Also, I read “somewhere on the internet” that the 6.8mm SPC is only marginally better than the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. I’ve heard some of those same detractors recommend the 6.5mm Grendel. This fan site for the round really makes it look good, though I wouldn’t know if it is the answer for our infantry: http://www.65grendel.com/ Here’s the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel
Or our military could switch to another rifle that uses the 5.56mm NATO and work on optimizing the cartridge to maximize its usefulness. And then all this won’t matter when our servicemen and women get their hands on the first generation electrothermalchemical (ETC)/rail or coil/LASER/plasma rifles.
Sorry for the double post. I forgot to input my information so I thought the site rejected my post when I hastily pressed the “Submit Comment” button.
Informative article…obviously the upgraded round is not manufactured in Chicago by union workers.
Given a choice I would much rather be hit by the 7.62×39 round. It has more kinetic energy (it slaps you), it’s heavy, and tends to go through you, but the wound channel is relatively shallow. The 5.56 on the other hand (as a high velocity round) tends to leave a deep wound channel and (as a lightweight round) can deflect, tumble and spall into pieces (inside the body). SO you might not die right now . . . but.
The other advantage of the 5.56 vs the 7.62 is size and weight. The 5.56 is much lighter and smaller, so the individual troop can carry a lot more than his adversary. Add to that the accuracy and stability of the round and weapons system vs the AK. Beyond 100 meters the AK’s accuracy drops precipitously (shot groups at 200 meters are at least 6 to eight inches in diameter for well zeroed weapons). The M4 is effective out to (for the well trained marksman) 460 meters with no real loss of consistent accuracy.
The one advantage the AK has is its ease of maintenance (and reliability under almost any condition). The weakness that makes it a marginally accurate weapon is it’s greatest strength, wide tolerances between all of it’s components. Dirt, dust and mud conditions that cause jamming in most weapons might slow an AK down, but it is a hard weapon to make jam.
Don – The original low-twist M16 and original high velocity 49 grain ammo caused massive wounds in Vietnam.
Now the ammo is heavier and slower (62-grain), the rifle twist is much tighter (1/7), the barrel is shorter for an M4 (16″ instead of 20″). We are also shooting at much longer distances than Vietnam so the round has slowed considerably before impact.
The result is a very stable slower round (that is more accurate and could penetrate body armor if the enemy had any). It makes a nice .22″ hole at continues downrange. No tumble, no yaw.
Whenever a read a stupid AK-47 versus M16/4 article, all I can think is “they are both crap.” Both were designed more than half a century ago and have been surpassed by several generations of newer and much better rifles.
The AK47 is long gone from Russian front-line units and its replacement – the AK74 is soon to be replaced.
The M16 for some reason is still around. It has a massive design flaw in its direct impingement system which blasts dirty carbon all over the bolt after every shot. I found it to be unreliable in the sand even with daily cleaning. Every other gas-operated military rifle uses a piston.
The shorter barrel of the M4 makes it the wrong weapon for the open areas of Afghanistan and Iraq. At least the M16A4 has some chance of hitting a target at 500 yards, which is not that long a shot in the desert or mountains. That is why there was a run on all the old M14’s sitting around the armories.
I agree that a new cartridge would be great – I like the long-range capability of the 6.5 Grendel more than the 6.8 SPC but wouldn’t complain either way. If we are switching calibers, let’s switch rifles too. It is long past time.
MK16 SCAR or HK416 chambered in 6.8spc should be issued, with priority to all forward deployed military, others who can’t expect immediate support from GPMGs, artillery, and air cover.
These rifles are a lot more reliable. And the 5.56 round was never a good idea; it should be phased out or relegated to similar status as M1 Carbine before it.
I’d like to know who told them that the 7.62 x 39 round is more effective at long range than the 5.56 x 45mm. The 7/62′s 124-grain bullet leaves the muzzle of the AK at about 2,400 feet per second. The 5.56 70-grain leaves the muzzle of a standard M-16A2 at 3,100 FPS. The 7.62 round was designed for effective full-auto “suppressive fire” out to 100 meters (110 yards), and for effective fire in single-shot mode out to 300 meters (330 yards). That’s it.
The 7.62 drops dramatically after it gets 400 yards out (about 20-25″ below line of sight), which is no surprise considering its relatively low velocity with a fairly heavy bullet by rifle standards. This didn’t matter to the old Red Army, who never intended to shoot at anybody beyond 300 meters with it anyway. (Targets beyond 300 were the province of snipers or heavy machine guns, both using the old 7.62 x 54 rimmed Mosin-Nagant round, a high-powered load in the same class as the German 7.9 x 57 Mauser or our own American .30-06 Springfield.) The trick with the 7.62 x 39 round isn’t whether or not it’s a heavier hitter at long range; it’s actually succeeding in hitting anything with it to start with.
The original 5.56 round (M193 Ball) had a 55-grain bullet at 3,300 FPS. It was also intended as a 300-meter round, that did serious internal damage to its target because on impact and penetration, its combination of high velocity and a light bullet with a thin jacket caused the bullet to basically blow up inside. The resulting fragments made a hole that was actually larger than that made by the older 7.62 x 51 NATO (aka .308 Winchester) round’s 150-grain bullet. In fact, there was considerable criticism of the 5.56 by humanitarian groups precisely because it “blew up” in this manner, as they considered that it violated the Hague Convention of 1908 which prohibited the use of expanding bullets in “civilized warfare”.
(Note; the Hague Convention’s definition only prohibited what are now called “hollow-point” bullets, which were known as “dum-dum bullets” way back when, and were used by the British Army in their Martini-Henry rifles in their colonial wars against locals who didn’t like being colonized. It said nothing about bullets that fragment due to other means; explosive bullets, for instance, were and are quite legal- automatic cannon fire them. The 5.56 55-grain bullet is a full metal jacket just like any other military-issue bullet. It just happens to come apart when it hits. This, by the way, was not discovered during development, only when it entered combat in Vietnam.)
When the 5.56 was adopted by NATO as the alliance’s standard rifle round in the 1980s, the humanitarian groups demanded that its tendency to make big holes in targets other than paper ones be eliminated. At the same time, some people in politics over here demanded that the M-16′s effective range be increased somehow, apparently not understanding the difference between an intermediate round for close-to-medium range use and a full-powered round intended for long-range shooting. (That role was still the province of the 7.62 x 51 round in sniper rifles and machine guns, and still is today in most armies using the 5.56, including ours.)
The combination of demands for less “target trauma” and greater range resulted in the Belgian (Fabrique Nationale)- designed SS109 round, with a 70-grain bullet at 3,100 FPS. (It’s called the M855 Ball in U.S. supply officer’s language.) When stabilized by a faster pitch of rifling (1 turn in 7 inches vs. the original 1 turn in 16), it is accurate out to 700 meters, which means that no matter what Fox News says, a soldier armed with it can probably hit a target out to about 400-500 meters with the iron sights on the rifle. With the M-16A2, that is.
The shorter-barreled M4 is not going to be accurate out that far. But it isn’t designed to be, as the author states. The job of long-range shooting is still the province of the 7.62 x 51 round, in the hands of machine-gunners and snipers.
In either the M-16A2 or the M4, the 70-grain bullet does not “blow up” inside the target like the old 55-grain bullet did. So the humanitarians are happy, or as happy as they ever can be in this context. Please note, the 7.62 x 39 bullet doesn’t “blow up”, and never did, and few people shot with it wish to repeat the experience.
Whether the 70-grain bullet is as good a “stopper”, at any range, as the 7.62 x 39′s is one of those things that can be debated forever, sort of like the argument about whether the .45 ACP is a better “stopper” than the 9mm Parabellum in pistol rounds. (Actually, statistically they are about even.)
The 6.8 round shows promise as an improved cartridge that will outperform the 5.56 in accuracy out to about 600 meters. However, I doubt it will show greater “stopping power” (a nebulous concept if there ever was one, anyway). Nor do I expect it to replace the 7.62 x 51 in the long-range shooting department.
What does all this prove? Not much, except perhaps that decisions about the ballistics of military rifles are probably best left to people with actual knowledge of ballistics. This usually requires a degree in physics, as opposed to one in law, journalism, or “humanitarianism”.
(PS- as a former crime-lab geek, my specialty was ballistics evidence, and even I’m not qualified to design military rifle rounds. I leave that to the pros.)
clear ether
eon
The 5.56 round is smaller and so you can carry more of them. That is IMPORTANT. 7.62 AK ammo is bigger and heavier. The AK47 is a dependable design but NOT an accurate shooting gun. You won’t consistently hit anything out past about 150 yards. The barrel FLEXES when you shoot it. Each round goes off in a different direction!
The M4 is equally reliable and the 5.56 round is good enough to make the tradeoff for weight and so forth. In a firefight at 80 yards or 120 yards, I”d rather have more rounds and a straighter shooting gun than have fewer rounds and a flexing barrel. We win firefights. The M4 is one reason why.
And at longer ranges the AK loses so much accuracy that its inherent power advantage is worthless.
Such is my civilian experience with these calibers and weapons. I have never been in a firefight. God bless ‘em.
That was a very good analysis. Thank you.
All barrels flex when fired, that is why target barrels are fatter, less flex and less affected by heat. It is probably the loose fit of AK parts that account for the lack of accuracy.
Mr. Owens, maybe you should have used the word “cartridge” instead of “bullet” in your title but the point of the article is well taken. There has been controversy over the 5.56 round and the M16 from the beginning and it’s an established fact that in its early days in Vietnam, combat troops preferred the AK-47 and used captured ones when possible.
I am glad the services are looking into replacing the caliber and 6.8 mm seems about right. In fact it is almost a Back To The Future thing. 6.8 mm is very near in diameter to the venerable 7×57 designed by Mauser back in the late 1800′s and the 6.8 spc cartridge is built off the .30 rimless Remington round which is Remington’s 1906 rimless version of the equally venerable 30-30 Winchester. Maybe the old guys back there did know a thing or two about cartridge shape, ballistic efficiencies, accuracy and terminal velocities.
It is also almost exactly the caliber of the .276 Pederson designed for the M1 Garand that MacAuthur rejected in the 30′s. Our GI’s were supposed to have 10-shot Garands in WWII!
The Army kept the big .30/06 instead, then went too small in the 60′s. Maybe they can get it righ this time.
The real “back to the future” aspect is the resemblance of both cartridges to the .280 Enfield, the excellent round the British proposed as the NATO standard before the US imposed the 7.62×51- which proved to be an excellent machine-gun and sniper round but, as the Brits predicted, overpowered (and heavy) for an assault rifle cartridge: automatic fire is effectively uncontrollable, even with a big heavy M-14 or FAL. So, since the 7.62 was too big, the US replaced it, in shoulder arms, by going too far the other way with the too-small .223 Remington (5.56).
It’s past time for Goldilocks to find a round that’s just right.
Hi Mike2 Just wondering where you got the info about our guys using the AKs “whenever they could”. I served with a Marine rifle company in Vietnam in ’67 and ’68. I did have problems with my M16 but most if not all of these were eventually taken care of when we were given the M16E1s. Our unit found several large caches of weapons and weapons and I can’t recall anyone jumping up and down with the prospect of finally getting a great weapon. And, they had no souvenir value because you weren’t allowed to take automatic weapons from the country. Another point that gives the info a shadow of doubt is the fact that the person choosing to use the AK would still be responsible for his GI weapon to carry/clean/maintain. I chose to carry extra food/water and ammo rather than crap.
The Fox article wasn’t so much about the M4 as it was about the ineffective 5.56 cartridge at longer ranges encountered in Afghanistan.
While the 6.8SPC does indeed have superior ballistics as compared to the 5.56, the 6.8SPC does not have the outstanding ballistic characteristics of the 6.5 Grendel, which could just as easily replace the 5.56 as the 6.8SPC.
In either the 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel, only half of each M4, the upper half, would need to be replaced. And we have plenty of rifle manufacturers in the United States which produce them.
For less than the cost of 1 F-22 Raptor, we could, and should, refit our military with a more modern cartridge.
I always hear how we can’t “afford” to upgrade away from the M16 family. Then I see countries with far less than our military spending upgrading to latest generation rifles.
Singapore (Singapore!) Uses the SAR-21. Israel is adopting the Tavor TAR-21. The Belgium FN F2000 is getting sales around the world. Spain and Germany went with the G36 (after giving up on the G11). Lots of countries use the Steyr AUG. The Chinese are replacing their AK’s with 5.8mm Type 97’s. The South Koreans are buying the Daewoo K11 after we gave up on a similar design. And the U.S. is buying FN SCAR’s – but only for out Special Forces.
I’ve laid my hands on a few of them – like driving a new Mercedes instead of an old Chevy.
Look ‘em up if you want to see what new rifles look like. Makes AK / M16 arguments seem very 1970ish.
The USMC is testing a variant of the HK416 – basically a G36 dressed up as an M4. We’ll see what happens.
You are half right. The M-16 and the M-4 are less reliable than rifles that use a gas piston and are the least reliable of any rifle tested when the Army was searching for a possible replacement. The Pentagon deems it “good enough.”
I’d forego the purchase of the luxury jets used to ferry Congress critters and flag officers around and buy the troops the best rifle made, but that’s just my opinion. My military days are long gone, but I would rather have carried the M-14 and less ammunition. That one always went bang when I pulled the trigger, unlike a certain M-16 I trained with… The M-4 is handy for urban warfare, but Iraq is pretty much history now.
The 6.5 Grendel could adequately replace both the 5.56 and 7.62, and is better suited for the longer ranges of Afghanistan than the 6.8. The 5.56 isn’t legal for shooting deer in many states, and that’s with expanding bullets, not the fully jacketed ones that are used by the military. You can kill someone with a .22 LR, but that doesn’t make it adequate for combat.
We ask our troops to risk their lives, and they deserve better than “good enough.”
If you are going to replace the barrel and magazine, you might as well just go with a .308 chambered M4.
That would be called a short-barreled AR-10.
NO. Too little ammo, and more important, uncontrollable fire: we found with the selective-fire M-14 that going full-auto with .308 resulted in “spray and pray.” Assault rifles require intermediate-power rounds, not full-power battle rifle rounds that were designed for 1000-yard ranges.
Absolutely correct, Bohemond. Experiments with self-loading rifles go back to before World war One (Madsen in Denmark prototyped one in 1897!), and they included the armies of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, the United States, and even Mexico. (Google “Manuel Mondragon”.)
And they all ended up with the same conclusion. It just isn’t possible to build a fully-automatic infantry rifle firing a full-power cartridge and weighing the “right” amount (under 11 pounds fully loaded)that does not climb uncontrollably on full-auto. The laws of physics, specifically Newton’s Third Law of Motion, will not permit it.
The result was the development of what we now call the light machine gun, such as the British/American Lewis Gun, followed by the Browning M1918 (still known as the “Browning Automatic Rifle” to this day), and the Czech ZB26, which set the pattern for half the LMGs used in World War 2 (The British Bren, Japanese Type 99 “Nambu”, and several others were licensed or unlicensed copies of the ZB26. (And even the French Modele’ 1924, which supposedly predates it, looks suspiciously like it- and didn’t enter service until 1929, at that.)
And all of those weapons weigh between 15 and 20 pounds empty, and are usually fired from at least a bipod, if not a full tripod.
The Germans came up with the “General Purpose Machine Gun” (GPMG) in the 1930s, with their MG-34, and probably came up with the almost perfect one in the MG-42 eight years later. (It’s still around, as the MG-3 in 7.62 NATO.) And they found out that it wasn’t enough that the gun weigh at least fifteen pounds; it also had to have a low enough rate of fire not to get away from the gunner. Mg-34; 60 rounds per minute, easy to keep aimed. Mg-42; 1200 RPM, and even the gunner’s assistant hanging on to the bipod for dear life could barely keep it from impersonating a runaway rocket enroute to the rear. (The modern MG-3 version fires at a more reasonable 600 RPM for this exact reason.)
People in politics are complaining these days about the U.S. M240G GPMG, which has replaced all the old M60s as squad machine guns, plus quite a few M249s (5.56). It’s a “product-improved” Belgian MAG 58, designed by FN about the time my parents “designed” me. The pols complain that (1) it’s an “old” design, (2) it’s “foreign”, and (3) it’s “too heavy”. The answer from the Army and Marines is
1. OK, it’s half-a century old, but it works in any and all conditions.
2. Big deal; so are the M249 and the Beretta M9 pistol. For their jobs, they work, too, so who cares where they came from?
3. It weighs 18 pounds empty. It also fires the 7.62 NATO round, and will “reach out and touch someone” at 1000 meters and change, which no 5.56mm will do. (And neither will a 7.62 x 39.)
Oh, and (4)
It fires its 7.62 NATO at 550 RPM from a 250-round belt, and it doesn’t try to “walk away” from the gunner when it’s doing it. It’s also waay more reliable than the old M60, not having the latter’s litany of clever ways to disable itself. (Don’t get me started on that, or this will be a field manual.)
The soldiers love it. With good reason.
cheers
eon
Drat. The ROF of the MG-34 is 600 rounds per minute, not 60. I dropped a zero typing. (I hate that.)
cheers
eon
Actually, I recall reading that the M240/MAG is almost identical in operation to the M1918 BAR. They just flipped the bolt upside down so that it cams downward instead of up (eliminating that little bump that the BAR had) and added a belt advancer instead of a magazine feed. That would make the design closer to 90 years old. I don’t understand the arguments made against older weapons simply because they’re old. The M1911 is still one of the better handguns out there, which is why the Marine Corps ordered several thousand of them this year. And do we even need to discuss the M2HB .50 caliber machine gun? I’m pretty sure the 89 year service of that weapon, and the lack of any replacement in the foreseeable future, speaks to the effectiveness of that design. Basically, if John Browning designed it, you’re good to go.
Uncontrollable full auto isn’t an inherent problem with 7.62×51 in a lighter carbine. Check out the M14K for example.
http://www.crazyhorserifles.com/m14k%20article.htm
Also, if redesigning the cartridge is an option, then one of the SMc cartridge designs gives you higher velocity with less recoil. There’s a lot of high BC 6.5mm bullets available and they seem to have good terminal effects. 6.5/70 SMc should be far better than 7.62×51 NATO in all regards (except the expense of developing it and switching to it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5mm/35_SMc
Also, it’s an interesting historical note that 7.62×39 (generally considered innacurate) was the basis for 220 Russian, which was the basis for 6 PPC (one of the most accurate cartridges known).
Ah, “spray and pray”! Brings back memories. I actually liked the ‘rock and roll’ M14A! I used as a cadet, and actually managed to qualify ‘expert’ with it, though it did want to climb like a bitch. My youthful experiences with a Thompson M1928 in .45 caliber and a ‘selector switch’ Johnson in .30-06 were probably helpful, both of them were even harder to control on full auto. The only way to get any kind of reasonable results was short (3 round) burst fire.
It’s been a while since I was in the infantry, and I’m certainly not disputing anything that was said here. I’m especially aware that the .308 would be a costly ammo to field. I thought the converstation was about the need for longer ranges. Is the ‘spray and pray’ the result of fire discipline, or is it something that is just ‘one of those things’ in regards to infantry combat?
Rik – We never taught “spray and pray.” We have taught and used “fire and maneuver” since at least WWII.
That means when an American combat patrol makes contact with the enemy, part of that unit lays down “suppressing fire.” Shooting at them often enough and accurately enough to pin them down although it probably won’t hit many of them, particularly if they are dug in.
The rest of the combat patrol goes looking for their flanks (sides) where they can get in close and actually kill or capture them.
So some volume of fire is needed to keep them pinned down – not just a few blasts from a sniper rifle. Typically the roll of the light machine gun but rifles too. And some volume is needed for the actual kill.
The problem is that places like the Iraqi desert or Afghan mountains, you will never make it to their flanks. The thinks is decided like an old-fashioned shoot-out unless the Rules-of-Engagement permit the use of artillery or Air.
No, the reference to “spray and pray” in this context is the tendency of some weapons to climb uncontrollably on full-auto, which combined with the shooter’s efforts to hold it down results in spraying rounds all around the vicinity of the target rather than aimed fire. It’s a function of muzzle energy versus weapon weight versus rate of fire, and it’s very bad indeed if you combine a fullpower round like .308 with a lightweight rifle.
OTOH, “spray and pray” does describe the fire discipline of most Iraqi insurgents.
Recoil is easily tamed. I have a short barreled 45-70 Marlin Scout gun. Shooting hot loads out of it produces zero recoil, but the noise is enormous due to the vents in the end of the barrel that vent gas up and limit recoil.
.308 IS 7.62 caliber, with even larger cartridge, 51mm instead of 39mm AK47 round.. way too much power to use as assault rifle, close combat. Rifle would buck like crazy in your hands, couldn’t hit anything more than once on rapid fire, and full auto it would melt down. and all advantages to 5.56 re small cartridge size and larger number of rounds in storage space would be gone too. Big, heavy ammo, uncontrollable light rifle.
.308 is fine intermediate sniper caliber, but lousy for CQ combat. Even the AK is a bit jumpy for close quarters and that has a lot less power than NATO 7.62/.308.
The one advantage the AK has is its ease of maintenance (and reliability under almost any condition).
That is one of the reasons why guerrillas, who have poor logistics and maintenance capability, like it. In regular Armies it is less of a factor even if still important.
It’s the same dichotomy seen in WW 2 between the American Thompson submachine gun, the British Sten, and the German MP-38/40 (often and incorrectly known as the “Schmeisser”). The “tommy gun” was heavy, beautifully made, built like a Swiss watch- and required considerable TLC to keep it ticking. (Namely, the proper care and lubing of the H-shaped Blish lock in the bolt.) The MP-38/40 was a “simple” blowback, but was still fairly complex. The Sten was an even simpler slamfire blowback, and was downright agricultural. But it worked under conditions the other two balked at.
In 1942-43, U.S. Army Ordnance came up with the M-3 “Grease Gun”, a .45 caliber SMG that was about as simple as the Sten. They also redesigned the Thompson, ditching the Blish lock, the hammer, floating firing pin, etc., of the commercial model they’d been issuing, and came up with the M1A1 thompson. Outside, it looked a lot like the original “Tommy” except with the bolt-retracting handle on the side instead of the top of the receiver. Inside, it was a simple, mule-stupid, fixed-firing-pin slamfire blowback, like the Grease Gun and the Sten.
Even the Germans came up with a version of the Sten, called the MP 3008, to arm their “Volkssturm” units with in the last days of the war in Europe. It was crude, even compared to the Sten, with everything spot-welded together out of seamless steel tubing, stampings, etc. But it fed, and fired, and ejected, and shot where it was aimed, and that was what counted at that stage of the war.
Simpler is better in a combat weapon.
cheers
eon
Eon:
My old man did ground combat in Vietnam with the 3rd Brigade and 1/14th Infantry. (Nov 1966-Nov 1967) This was during the M-14 to M-16 transition period. As a brigade staff officer from Nov-Apr he preferred the M3A1 over a rifle. Most of his work was done from an LZ/Firebase so their combat was largely defensive. His observation was that the slow firing, simple, heavy hitting M3 was exactly what was needed for firefights.
In regard to a rifle, he was a self professed M1 man. He could tear one apart and reassemble it in the dark. He was a brutally accurate shot, and very often defeated his NCO and enlisted marksmen in collegial one on one qualifying matches (including tank weapons). His love of the M1 was transferred to the M14.
That is the background, anyway. (He taught me to shoot, field-strip, research, evaluate firearms from the time I was old enough to have a toy gun -sigh… I miss my “Lieutenants”, though if I chose I can own a real one…)
1. His observation of the M16 platform – He thought the ergonomics of the lower receiver group and straight stock to be a serious advantage. He hated the direct gas system because it got filthy and clogged too quickly (both with the bad powder, and good powder.) He also felt that the 5.56 was a great woodchuck round. His rule though was if you can’t hunt deer with it, then it isn’t the right caliber for hunting men in a war. He would have liked to see the rifle designed for a heavier caliber that wasn’t as heavy as the 7.62 NATO. He did, however love the CAR15 Carbine version of the M16, but his expectations of a carbine were much different than a battle rifle. It was a great replacement for the M1 Carbine.
2. From personal observation. The 6.5 Grendel will never be a good candidate for the military. Though it is derived from the 7.62×39 (from the last drawings that I saw of its specs and case head… I am happy if there is a correction…) it’s bullet length (not cartridge length) and seating depth are going to be evaluated as problematic by the services. Cartridge configuration is critically important to the military. The SAW (M249) would have to be upgraded to fire the rifle round (doctrine above all for bureaucrats mind you). The bullet’s shape might present an issue in a belt fed usage configuration. I have seen the ballistics… they are quite impressive and I would love one, myself – I have a wife and tuition for kids so any round burner is out of the question. The 6.8mm Rem SPC seems to fit the bill, similar ballistics to the 6.5, much better down range energy curve than the current 5.56, and the round fits the “profile” of a military round (an evaluation that counts… heavily.)
3. Needless to say my old man’s observation, coupled with my own ownership experience I sold my AR15 almost 10 years ago now, but had it for almost 15, regarding the direct gas impingement system is a good one. I think the new class of AR180′d M16/M4 firearms to be superior. Put an indirect piston driven upper in 6.8mm, and you have an excellent combination regardless of whether a new polymer molded wonder blaster comes out. It would be a good deal less expensive as well.
Remember, perspective in all things, and in this one… we are dealing with federal bureaucrats sitting on mountains of 5.56mm ammunition and a Federal gun control mentality that wouldn’t be too happy to sell it to us, the unwashed and untrusted masses.
But that’s just my 2 cents worth.
r/The Mighty Fahvaag
The problem is not the round. A 5.56x45mm from an m-4 has greater velocity and range than a 7.62×39 from an ak-47. The russians actually use a 7.62x45mm in their rifles the ak-74. This round is very similiar to a 5.56 nato that we use. Upgrading to a 6.8 will not solve anything and quite frankly is a dumb idea. The cost would be out of control. Better markmanship wins the day, the use of designated marksman rifles helps as well. The 5.56 is light so you can carry plenty of which is not the same for the 7.62×51 nato which is the m-14 round. The ammunition we have is plenty suitable and actually better than the enemy we face but well placed rounds kill no matter the type of ammo.
I’m not quite sure where you are getting your information, but the AK-74 is chambered for the 5.45×39 , not a 7.62 cartridge (the “7.62×45″ cartridge you offer does not exist). In addition, the AK-74 is being replaced by AK-10″X” series rifles in the older 7.62×39 cartridge precisely because many using the “poison pill” were unhappy with the performance of the .21-caliber bullet when it did not keyhole and tumble.
Apparently you did not bother to read the article, nor have you listened to firsthand stories from actual soldiers and Marines. The accuracy of the weapon system and marksmanship of U.S. servicemen is not the issue. The problem was (and continues to be) that enemy forces hit by 5.56 rounds traveling at lower than optimal velocities did not disperse their energy inside the target and achieve immediate incapacitation. There are literally hundreds of incidents dating back several conflicts where enemy fighters took multiple aimed rounds at even short ranges from 5.56 M4 carbines and M16 rifles and were able to continue combat for not just seconds, but minutes.
Please confine your comments to posts where you have some knowledge of what you are attempting to discuss.
Slight correction, Mr Owens; there is, or used to be, a 7.62 x 45 round, made for the original Czech Vzor (Model)52 carbine, a semi-automatic arm in the same general class as the Russian SKS-45. It was ballistically superior to the 7.62 x 39 (about in the class of the old .300 Savage sporting round), but when what was then Czechoslovakia was inducted into the Warsaw Pact, they were also “prevailed upon” to adopt the Soviet 7.62 x 39 round in a modified Vz52. You still find surplus Czech “Vz52″ semi-automatic carbines in the gunshops, but if you look closely, they are actually marked, “Vz52/59″- indicating that they are chambered for the 7.62 x 39 round.
cheers
eon
You are correct that was a typo. I know about the russian upgrades and the an-94 style models. I have listened seeing as how i am an active duty Marine infantryman. And for your knowledge it is the marksmanship the people you listened to were bad shots. If you hit your target where it will incapacitate him with any type of round you can achieve an easier killing blow ie hit in the pelvis then aim up a killing shot. Another reason your buddies may not be able to hit the target is they do not know how to correctly zero their acog. The 5.56 and m-4 are more than suitable and you should not listen to tall tales from bad shots.
ammo;
First of all, thank you for your service. Two of my uncles were Marines, one in the Pacific theater, and one in Korea.
I agree with you about where to hit the target. In law enforcement, I learned to put the rounds from my service pistol in the “center of mass”, which we defined as the area between the neck and the belt buckle. A hit anywhere in the center of the torso and not too far from the spine laterally will at least be debilitating, if not fatal. (I’ve also attended a few autopsies of people who died from being shot, stabbed, etc., in that area.)
An interesting feature of the AKM rifle is the line marked “D” on the rear sight ladder. (You probably already know about this, of course.) This is the “battle sight” setting. With the sight set on “D”, if the shooter aims center chest on the man he’s shooting at, out to 300 meters the bullet will hit somewhere on a vertical line between his neck and his navel. Exactly where depends on actual distance and thus trajectory. The Red Army figured it didn’t make much difference; a hit anywhere along that line would at least wound a man badly enough to take him out of the fight, even if it didn’t kill him.
“Combat shooting” is a game, like target shooting. “Battle shooting” is serious business. So is what happens when a police officer draws his sidearm on a criminal. The latter two categories have a great deal in common, from a purely practical standpoint.
cheers
eon
I want to know what kind of ammunition they were using in their M16s that didn’t cause a takedown at short range. The SS109 “green tips” are notorious for penetrating their targets without tumbling. The M16 should still be using the light 55-grain round it was designed for. It would be effective to 400-500 meters. Since the 5.56mm’s power was always a function of velocity, the M4 was never more than a specialist weapon, something for vehicle crews and CQB. Why it has become standard issue is beyond me. Give them back the M16 for Afghanistan and see how that works before we start scrapping existing inventory and building new rifles. Also, I understand that M14 EBRs are being issued on the basis of two per squad in Army units to make up the range deficit. A stopgap, to be sure, but props to John Garand for making a rifle that’s going to approach in the 80 year mark in service. For our next trick, let’s rechamber the M14 in .276 and see how that works.
Well, Bob, I wouldn’t entirely leave the M4 blameless. Yes, the 5.56 was always borderline-effective, and, yes, the M855 purchased range at the price of terminal ballistics: but those foibles are compounded by the M-4′s short barrel, which doesn’t generate sufficient muzzle velocity to optimize even the fairly modest terminal ballistics of the 5.56.
Ironically, the Army opted to standardize on this short-barrel carbine based in large part on the predominance of urban battlefields and CQB in Iraq- and now that Afghanistan is the primary theater, with engagement ranges greater than anything the US Army has dealt with since Korea, it’s stuck with a short-range weapon. The Marines, at least, went with the full-size M-16A4 in their rifle companies.
It has seemed to me for some time that the Pentagon really, really needs to upgrade *both* the cartridge *and* the weapon at the same time. This can be done fairly economically by mating existing M-16/M-4 lowers with new HK 416 uppers; the 416 is, effectively, an M-16 with the faulty gas-impingement system replaced with a piston, and it has proved in Army tests to be vastly more reliable. Have the new uppers chambered in an intermediate round in the .270-cal class, SPC or Grendel, with genuine rifle-length barrels.
The more expensive approach would be the general issue of the FN SCAR-L, currently fielded by the Rangers; but, again, in an upgraded chambering.
Yes, the M-4 was sized for urban combat but the Army found out in Iraq that a 5.56 lacks penetrating power and is stopped by walls and brick. The M-14 has had a revival because in urban combat the round can penetrate into building interiors.
The M-16 was the weapon of choice for close range jungle combat in Vietnam because you seldom had a direct shot at your enemy and volume of fire was considered key. The smaller cartridge meant that you could carry more rounds. The M-16 is not an adequate weapon for European or desert environments.
The M-16 was derived from the AR-10 which used the NATO round. It had excellent controllability at full auto. It lost out to the M-14 because of the Army’s preference for the very reliable Garand bolt over a new technology. Had the Army gone with the AR-10 there is every reason to believe that we would still be using it today.
Here comes a reasonably well written article by an author with no expertise in firearms/ammunition followed by comments from aficionados with vast knowledge. I am guessing there will be lots and I will read them. I cannot resist throwing out a couple of facts for you to ponder, if so inclined.
1) The “DC Sniper”s used the semi-automatic, civilian version of the M-4/16 (i.e., 5.56 x 45mm). The father and son team killed several people, every one with a single shot.
2) Both the AK47 and M-16 were intended for use at 300 meters or less. The newest AK versions are in 5.45mm. A faster, lighter bullet. (Like ours.)
Mr. Owens,
Any cartridge, bullet, barrel twist and length combination is going to be “suboptimal in many situations”. Everything else is a necessary and, hopefully, well informed trade off. That’s why there is such a bewildering array of calibers, bullets, etc.
The DC snipers were also using soft-point ammo, which is illegal for military use.
Fantastic, great, wonderful, I just can not believe that a bunch of “desk jockies”, dweebs, nurds and engineers with slide rules make the “life and death” decisions concerning the safety of our armed forces. Reminds me of the WWI fiasco surrounding the Browning Automatic Rifle . . . it’s a secret and we don’t want to give away our secrets now do we? If you are in a fire fight with bunch of very poorly trained soldiers that are equipped with a weapon that puts “lots of lead” into the air and they simple stick the weapon over the top of the rock or whatever they are hidding behind . . . so you got a more accurate weapon, so what . . . you got no target . . . get it? Stalin said . . .”Quantity has a quality all it’s own” . . . so the idea is lots of lead from long range does more damage, just due to the “one-in-a-million” chance shot. Sending our soliders to war with a weapon that does not do the job . . . shame on us!
Drop the poodle shooter and replace it with a weapon that fires the round the M14 did, the 7.62×51, aka .308. Fabrique Nationale Herstale manufactures a superb weapon in Columbia, SC, the SCAR(H) This is a modern weapon, modular so that changes in configuration are easy, reliable, very accurate, with none of the shortcomings of M16 variants. I myself own a FN/FAL, the NATO standard battle rifle from the mid-50′s to the early 90′s. While the FAL may miss the accuracy of M4 at long range by 1 MOA, the knockdown power of the round more than makes up for that. The FN SCAR(H) is easily as accurate as any M4.
How does one do ‘full auto’ with the .308? Sounds useless to me. That’s a medium sniper round, long range game weapon at home. Even rapid single fire would release massive heat and buck the rifle right up the wall…
Port the barrel, no recoil, so, so simple.
I have a Ruger rifle that is chambered for the AK-47 round, the 7.62×39. When handloading rounds that are suitable for hunting deer with this rifle, I was advised by the technical staff at a major bullet manufacturer that this round has a velocity that is too low for normal hunting bullets to expand properly. He recommended a 30 caliber pistol bullet that is designed to function at lower velocities. In other words, the 7.62×39 out of the box is a sub-optimal caliber for deer hunting. On the other hand, the 5.56 (or .223 Remington) is effective against deer.
This is not to deny that a lot of people have died as a result of AK-47 fire. It is to document that bullet size or case capacity are not the only criteria that are important when choosing an effective battlefield weapon.
yeah, but the Geneva convention requires that we all use FMJ non-hollowpoints anyway, so that probably removes the inherent disadvantage of slower bullet speed from the AK, unless of course (gasp) the Islamists are using hollowpoints anyway, in spite of Geneva conventions. Imagine that.
At any rate, bullet expansion is not an issue in war, not if you’re following the rules.
‘But a slug that is hammered from telegraph wire
is a thorn in the flesh, and a rankling fire.’ – Kipling
During my time in the Corps we re-qualified annually (at least) with M-16A1s(into the ’80s), then A2s. The upgrade to the A2 was a noticeable improvement for accuracy at 500-600yds(depending on which course you were shooting). During that time however, any Expert Rifleman, and most Marksmen could routinely hit a man-sized target at those ranges even with an old shot-out A1 with iron sights. My SRB will prove this to be true. Granted, this was at a rifle range, not a live combat scenario. That being said, any Marine knows that ‘a thousand rounds down range is not fire power. ONE HIT is fire power’.
Semper Fi.
Well, probably few of us are real experts, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have opinions. I suggest the entire infantryman’s burden be examined for weight savings and that the characteristic of weight saving be given less priority when evaluating rifles and ammunition. Range, accuracy, and dropping power should be the main considerations for wide-open spaces. Were I to be going in, fat chance, I’d like to go in with a 308 Win.
Yet another predictable article with the usual flaws. Do any journalists actually SHOOT weapons any more?
I won’t belabor the errors in the article; they have already been amply discussed in the posts above.
However, I have to laugh at some easily predictable outcomes. We should not have been surprised at the complaints about the M4 in Afghanistan. Soldiers love light weight, and we allowed carbines to be carried to a rifle fight. So then the Soldier’s complained about the M4′s “reach”. Really? Why where they surprised? You’re carrying a CARBINE, for God’s sake! It’s NOT going to reliably engage targets beyond about 300m.
So, what do we do? We look at fielding a larger, heavier cartridge and associated weapon. The next predictable complaints will be weight and lower basic load. Soldiers Ran Out of Ammo! will be the next headline we read.
Not to mention, the next war will probably be more like Iraq, or at least in urban terrain. So another predictable headline for the next war will be “Soldiers Have the Wrong Weapons!” And we will go through another hand-wringing session.
The fact is that the 5.56mm Rifle cartridge is just fine for most purposes. It is not fine for extended ranges beyond about 400 yards. Then again, about the only small arms that we have to worry about at that range are enemy machine guns – which typically fire the 7.62 x 54mm rimmed cartridge – similar to what the M240 GPMG fires.
What has been said several times in these comments is how inaccurate the AK is. If any of the readers saw the typical Red Army videos (of their exercises), you typically saw the troops un-ass their APCs (BMPs, BMDs or BTRs) with their weapons held high and pointed in a general direction (towards the enemy?) firing full auto as they ran. Soviets believed overwhelming volumes of fire (quantity) would defeat individual accurate (quality) fires every time, so the weapons were designed accordingly.
It’s interesting that with such a mentality being predominant that they still maintained a very robust sniper program.
The Soviets have always embraced the combined arms concept. Maintaining masses of fire punctuated by a small number of highly accurate “kill shots” fits within that concept.
In contrast, the US (and with it all of NATO) tries to hold up the fallacy that every conscript (or short term contract soldier) can accurately hit to kill a human at 500+ yards under combat conditions.
Indeed, for decades snipers were considered “uncivilised” and we shunned by western armed forces. Even when they were embraced (normally after highly skilled soldiers on the line took up the job of sniping because of a battlefield need for it and proved too successful to ignore) they are usually seen as a sideshow, equipped (until relatively recently) with inadequate equipment.
During the 2003 Iraq invasion, civilian groups paid for and supplied US Army units with hunting rifles and scopes to outfit their sniper platoons when the Army wouldn’t hand them anything better than an M16 with a Vietnam era scope.
While there is nothing wrong with such patriotism (it is to be applauded) the very need for it is bad. Why do soldiers have to write home to their friends and parents to please send them a decent weapon, as uncle Sam will not give them one?
Similarly some troops (not US afaik) in the Afghan theater have taken to wearing civilian issue flak jackets and other protective gear because the official issue equipment is ineffective.
Several Dutch marines have been officially reprimanded because of this up to cabinet level. The safety and effectiveness of the troops is of less importance than keeping up appearances.
Which ever caliber the military decides on they’ll always have accuracy problems when the ammo purchase goes out to bid and the accuracy/consistency specifications aren’t that great. You can buy loads of 5.56mm (.223) on the cheap but when you load it into your $3200 custom AR-15 it still doesn’t shoot nearly as tight a group as the stuff you can buy for 80-100% more. I am not suggesting that we upgrade the specification of 5.56mm since the 6.8mm is clearly a superior round in terms of ballistics. I am saying that if we go to 6.8mm as a standard we need to be sure that we are buying a higher quality load too.
Not to be overly picky but there’s a difference between “further” and “farther.” Farther is used with physical distance.
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-further-and-farther/
None of the above makes the slightest difference to ballistics, sight picture or trigger creep.
When you’re talking about a standoff firefight at 500 meters, focusing on the rifle seems to be missing the core problem. Both sides are probably throwing a lot of lead at each other with little effect. I would think that tactics are crucial here. Call in an air strike, artillery, or fall back and call up your snipers. If you’re required to pursue an enemy across open ground, I would think that agility, low weight, and high mobility are more valuable than dragging a large bore iron stick along with you.
Been there Tom – more like 700 meters at Umm Hujul in ’91 – all that fire support is only minutes away – when seconds count.
I used to carry a radio made out of battleship steel, a steel shovel, thick canvas and metal web gear, 30 lbs of body armor, a canvas and metal pack, etc…
The only thing that wasn’t too damn heavy and I never complained about carrying was my weapon and ammo. Give me a better rifle, even if it is a pound or two heavier, and make everything else lighter.
I am a rifleman.
Semper Fi, Marine. “This is my rifle. There many like it but this one is mine…..”
You’ll get no quarrel from me about the value of a rifleman in any ground combat situation. My argument is that you could have both sides switch rifles and ammunition (M4s for AK47s), and the side that has better training, support, and field leadership will win the vast majority of the time.
Well….
Well what, BC? Would you vote for this one, CIB man?
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Video.aspx?vid=2174
A new Bushmaster modular.
Well, there was a link to my “Well….” for starters.
Gun videos in general don’t really tell you much about how good a weapon is for day by day reliability and usage. It’s like buying a car just because it can to 0-60 in 4 seconds, even though you are going to be using it mostly for commuting. The post by “Serving Soldier” further down seems to address the greater overall issue rather succinctly.
Didn’t I use to bump heads with you back on Wizbang? How are you doing/they doing?
We’ve bumped heads before alright, and will always do so, unless one of us changes radically. A dim prospect. But not on Wizbang. Anyway, my link was just an encouragement for people to look for more info on the new Bushmaster modular rifle. One of the commenters here suggested modular may be the way for the military to go in future because of its potential to fit each rifle to a mission and to the geography. The new Bush offers that possibility.
One thing that is sure to instill confidence in our troops, which ever weapon they carry is being provided by the lowest bidder!
What this discussion seems to show is that it is a mistake to think that one weapon will serve every situation. Military logistics may favor a single solution but effective tachtics requires a mix; a compact, CQB weapon may want a short barrel and a large calibar round for effective stopping power (like the .45 ACP, .458 Socom or .50 Beowolf, or even a shotgun), while an open country battle requires a round with a high ballistic coefficient (like the 6.5 Grendal, 6.8 SPC, 7.62 NATO, .338 Lapua or even the .50 BMG). Some countries are attmepting to address this with modular weapons that can be armory or even field reconfigured for different situations. The mix of equipment should depend on the tachtical situation. The soldier does not generally fight in single combat but as a member of a unit in which capabilities overlap and compliment one-another.
The SCAR is modular like that and can be configured all different ways. But it’s expensive so I doubt regular infantry untis will ever touch it.
The Ordnance Corps has been in the business of buggering soldiers since its inception. Why stop know? Let soldiers and commanders on the ground choose their weapons and equipment, tailored to the environs and threat.
The market will choose the best tool for the job, not some REMF officer who wouldn’t know gun fighting from stick fencing. Spec ops folks asked for a SOCOM AK before the war even started, with the logical and sensible aim of having a weapon that could use local ammunition but have better optics and controls.
That makes far too much sense for the military, where nothing changes unless people die in large numbers.
Let gun fighters choose the guns and the market will respond, lives will be saved and bad guys killed much more efficiently.
Actually, it was the “shooters” who came up with the M-16 and the .223 round.
In 1956-57, CONARC (CONtinental ARmy Command) initiated Project SALVO, to determine what the next generation infantry rifle should be like. SALVO studied results from both World Wars and Korea, and found that;
1. Most infantry engagements occur at 300 yards or less;
2. More than half occur within 100 yards;
3. Full-auto suppressive fire was about as effective at inflicting casualties on the enemy and breaking up his units as aimed individual fire; and
4. In most terrain where American units could expect to be engaged (including places they had already fought, like Western Europe) a rifle with a range of over 1000 yards was pretty pointless, as you couldn’t see that far anyway due to terrain, foliage, buildings, etc.
SALVO recommended a rifle firing a round with an effective range of 300-400 yards (they hadn’t changed to KMS at that point), weighing under 7 pounds, and capable of controlled full-auto fire for close quarters battle. The ammunition was required to be able to pierce one side of a standard steel helmet at maximum effective range (300 yards). Not only did SALVO recommend a “small-caliber”, high velocity rifle, they didn’t even stop at .223; they were considering calibers as small as 4.5mm (about the size of a BB in diameter). They insisted on high velocity, both for hitting power and flat trajectory. The small caliber resulted in low recoil impulse, meaning you could fire it full-auto and actually hit something with more than the first slug out the muzzle.
Far from being an Ordnance Department brainstorm, the .223 rifles (one from Winchester, one from Springfield Arsenal, and one from Armalite Division of Fairchild-Republic Aircraft, later Fairchild Industries) were developed by, and for, the “shooters” at CONARC, which included the Infantry School, etc. In fact, Ordnance forced Springfield to withdraw their prototype from the trials, as they wanted no Ordnance endorsement of CONARC’s program, which they regarded as “heretical”. Ordnance’s one “contribution” to the test program was to demand a range of 500-600 yards, and the ability to pierce both sides of a steel helmet at that range. (Why this is relevant is hard to tell; a bullet that punches in and bounces around is going to do more damage.)
The resulting AR-15 rifle was, and is, designed “by shooters, for shooters”. Most of its problems in the past half-century have been due to Ordnance fiddling with it, mainly I suspect in the hopes of getting rid of it and replacing it with a duly-blessed and chapter-approved Ordnance product.
Above data (sans personal opinions) from Small Arms of the World, 11th Revised Edition, by Edward Clinton Ezell. Harrisburg, PA; Stackpole Books, 1977. PP.44-50.
cheers
eon
Well those “shooters” have been wrong on numbers 1, 2, and 4 for three consecutive wars now.
The Army (Air Force really) did a great job of picking a new rifle for the last war 50 years ago.
None of those “shooters” has ever stepped forward to bask in the glow of such an outstanding rifle. Unlike the AK-47 which was given to soldiers and tweaked to their recommendations (ironic, I know, in a totalitarian hellhole) the M-16 was pushed upon our troops at the worst possible time. Account of troops in Vietnam preferring the AK are so numerous it’s become accepted.
Contractors and Spec Ops folks NOW in the various “Stans” carry the AK by choice, as well as other excellent Russian designs such as the PK, RPD, DShK, and of course the wonderful RPG, which continues to perform as well as the AK-47.
What a shame the talents of men like Browning and Colt are things of the past, and attitudes such as those of MacCarthur will continue to shape weapon development.
Again, let the troops chose their own guns based on their own environments, as any hunter would. We certainly have a million other weapon systems available, no problems fielding the latest whiz bang, computer guided, billion dollar a round wonder toy.
How about freeing a few hundred or thousand dollars a piece for mission specific rifles that aren’t outclassed by a geriatric Russian tank sergeant?
It’s embarrassing.
“Much of the combat taking place in mountainous Afghanistan occurs at much longer ranges than U.S. soldiers have encountered in recent wars, and engagements at ranges in excess of 500 meters are not uncommon. Obviously, at these extended ranges the marksmanship of the combatants is of vital importance to their effectiveness. Poorly trained combatants will not hit their targets with frequency, and may not even pose enough of a threat to keep their opposition pinned down. In this type of combat, a weapon needs to be reliable and accurate, and fire a cartridge that retains energy, is relatively flat-shooting, and is resistant to wind drift.”
With this quote I submit that “retains energy (I assume distances out to 500 yards), shoots flat, and is resistant to wind…Well, that round hasn’t been invented in small arms rifles. The ballistics of the 5.56Nato (M16, 20″ barrel, 55 gr.) and 7.62Nato (M14, 22″ barrel, 147 gr) are basically the same up to 500 yards. The M14 is currently deployed along with the M4 in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have been effective. Once the projectile goes subsonic the accuracy drops. Doesn’t matter the rifle. The M14 will go longer distances before going subsonic but probably not further than 1000 yards at altitude (it would vary pending atmospheric conditions). Making comparisons is futile and a waste of time. Both rifles have their respective place. Both are required. Give me the M14 with optics for a battle rifle then get out of the way.
Snipers regularly go well beyond 1000 yards with spotters and specialized equipment. This is not the same thing as a battle rifle.
God bless our troops. Especially the snipers.
Well, instead of arguing over the best calibre or even weapon manufacturers, plenty of fanboi-ism going on in here(not in a bad way, just definite lines), I will say that the reason the Pentagon has not chosen a new battlefield rifle is simple, politics. Both internal and external politics. Either the change will be expensive, or some Congress critter will pull strings for a backer, etc.
You speak of Chris Dodd (D, Colt).
What a great bench racing session! I have a rifle built on the AK design that looks just like a bigger AK (well, at least the receiver). But it shoots a 7.62×54 cartridge.
And I dug one out after firing, and darned if there isn’t a little steel bar in the bullet…
Don’t know nothing about 7.62×45, but my 7.62×54 are used with a scope. It’s a sniper rifle. SVD Dragunov, should you wish to google for an image. So perhaps the ol AK-47 isn’t quite as inaccurate as you think. I admit that’s reasoning by analogy, and would be happy to be further educated.
It isn’t the round that is suspect – it’s the average AK-47 that shoots it that is inaccurate. With a decent barrel (less flex) the AK could be quite accurate.
The M-16 was designed by Stoner as a “weapons system.” After it got turned over to the military they “improved” the system to remove the chrome lining in the barrel, change the weight of projectile from 55 gr to 62 gr and change the propellant to something they had in stock or lowest bid. The result in Viet Nam was disaster made worse by the claim that it did not need to be cleaned.
The M16A corrected all the improvements made by the military but the design is inherently fragile. Flowing hot dirty gas back on operating mechanisms is a sure formula for overheating and jams. The theory that a the projectile would tumble and incapacitate the target was wishful thinking that ignored all the principles of terminal ballistics.
So why don’t we change? we have billions of dollars and thousands of military and civilian careers invested in this ineffective weapon. The only thing that makes it marginally effective in combat is the incredible discipline of a professional army that fanatically cleans it at every waking hour.
I served through the era of the M-1 and M-14. Yes they were heavier. Yes they could not fire full auto (nor can the M-16 reliably). But, the reliability in any climate or weather was as close to 100% as you can get.
BTW, if an AK-47 were manufactured to our levels of precision, it would be quite accurate to 300 yards as is a common SKS with a trigger job!
It’s about time we equipped our warriors with a world class rifle. And don’t get me started on the Beretta pistol!
I am an Infantryman of 30 years service who has returned recently from combat in Afghanistan. 90% of the comments here are reasonably accurate. 99% of the comments here are irrevelant to the issue of the M4 as a combat arm. All the history and nerdy detail outlined with such passion and verve, are no more effective than the M4. It is rickity and finicky and impossiable to keep clean and functioning smoothly. The 5.56mm round is fast and accurate to 600 meters, but has little killing or stopping power. Killing a mad dog requires multiple shots. Even well placed killing shots are slow to defeat a hopped-up enemy. I’ve tested the “new” M4 variants currently discussed. While very sexy, they leave me as unimpressed as the current M4. Clearly new thinking is required if we actually care to develop and field a long arm that is equal to the skill and determination of my fellow American warriors.
Unfortunately, people like you will not be making the decision, people like Obama will – and he doesn’t like you or me for that matter. Be careful and May God bless you and carry you safely through your daily work. If you can get your hands on an LWRC, use it, they have no maintenance issues at all.
The reason the 5.56 is still in use is not so much because it’s more effective than any other bullet, but because we’ve got approximately 11 kagillion of them stockpiled. The Army won’t upgrade to a new rifle/new cartridge until they get 100% improvement over the M16/M4. That’s the bottleneck. 95% is not good enough. The SCAR or ACR or the XM8 from a few years ago can all be 5.56 or 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC or 7.62×37/51 etc. They can even switch barrels on the go for better accuracy at long range without changing cartridge (which they can’t do without changing the receiver of course). But the Army doesn’t call that 100% improvement, and of course there is something to be said for tried and true. Even going to a gas-piston version of the M16/M4 would be a big improvement in terms of reliability and reduced fouling (or so all the manufacturers promise) but until that magical arbitrary 100% line gets crossed, it’s doubtful that things will change.
I think it’s likely that it’ll take some kind of really phenomenal caseless rifle to break the blockade. There have been several proposals for some amazing improvements but simplicity is needed as well as wonder tech.
Personally I reckon being able to carry a long barrel along and switch it out without tools is 100% improvement (SCAR/ACR/XM8). A nice short barrel for up close and a long thick barrel if you get stuck in a ditch with bad guys 500 yards away. Seems like that’s an extra few pounds of worthwhile burden. I think it would be great to have a rifle that is just as handy in narrow streets and house-to-house as it is in a WWI trench shooting volleys at 1200 yards, but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it.
Sounds good although I may have to bring a caddy/spotter for my golf bag full of spare barrels and bolts.
I’m just an old doggie so I can’t spew the statistics you guys can but, the M-1 30-06,M-1A1.308 (7.62 NATO), etc were battle rifles meant for open areas that can be refered to as battlefields with an expected effective range of about 700 yds(if you can utilize it). the M-16,M4,AK-47, AK-74(5.54mm not 5.45) etc are assault rifles meant for close quarters battles(up close as in storming a building or fortification(assaulting)to about 300 yds). We learned back in the beginning of the afghan war when we had to do battle in the mountains(can’t remember the name) when the Navy Seal fell from the back of the shithook. I can’t remember his name either but they named the ridge after him. May he rest in peace. The 5.56 did not prove effective way back then. At close quarters in the towns or when defending from an assault on your base the M-4 allows for quick recovery on shots and maneuverability. In the open areas that can be described as more of a battlfield you want to be able to reach out further if, not only to kill but to keep the enemy further away. The 7.62 Nato tracer round burns out at about 1100 yds. That is now what is considered the max effective range. Prior to that it was “as far as you can see to engage the target” Personnaly I have been able to lay down suppressive fire to about 2400 yds from an elevated position.
Personnaly I am appalled that it has taken our leadership this long to get their heads out of there asses to realize that the troops need something closer to a battle rifle in areas that can be considered battlefields.
By the way that reference someone made about the 9mm being equal to a .45. Well when our guys were getting hit with the 9mms and being killed, wounded and maybe dying or just wounded, the enemy who were hit with the .45s were just plain dying.
To all of you 6.5 Grendel fan-boys: The 6.8SPC is a better choice for the military because they don’t a round for distances past 500yds like 6.5G. Whoever said that 6.8SPC is only “marginally” better than 5.56 needs to get their facts straight instead of believing all the crap they “read on the internet.” 5.56 is only effective when it fragments inside the tissue and that only happens under specific conditions and velocities. 5.56 is terrible past 300yds because it loses its effectiveness right around 200-250yds. There are more rifle manufacturers supporting 6.8SPC than 6.5G and THAT’S A FACT. I am sorry but the Grendel round is DEAD. You have to think like military to understand why. Military does not want to spend any time or money unless it has to. 6.8SPC would be a quicker and less costly adaptation than 6.5G anyway. That’s just what I KNOW.
<>
I couldn’t agree with you more on this statement. However, you might want to check out the informative 6.5 Grendel forum at http://www.65grendel.com for information about the amazing 6.5 Grendel cartridge – as you’ll see from the active form discussions there, it is far from dead.
The 6.5mm bullet has had a loyal following in many incarnations: the 6.5×55 Swede and the 260 Remington for instance. I don’t know that I’d be so quick to write off the 6.5 Grendel or make unsupported pronouncements about its supposed demise.
BTW: The “statement” I was agreeing with was just this (my chevron quotes didn’t work): ‘get their facts straight instead of believing all the crap they “read on the internet.”’
Not only is the 6.5 Grendel not dead, it’s still on the uphill portion of the expansion slope. It has a very bright future even if the military never chooses it as a 5.56NATO replacement round.
The 6.5 Grendel covers everything that the 5.56, 6.8S, or 7.62NATO (M14) rounds do, then it does it at longer ranged in addition to handling the short ranges.
The latest gas piston systems available for the M16/4 rifle are very reliable and change from the direct impingement system, which is still considered by many to be just fine.
The 6.8SPC suffers from the following. It uses an obsolete hunting cartridge as its case source. The case has to be too long in order to contain adequate powder, that in turn dictates that the bullets must be short in order to remain within the m16/4 form factor.
The 6.5 Grendel, on the other hand, uses slightly larger diameter case which means that the case can be much shorter which allows the use of ballistically superior bullets that retain their energy at significantly longer ranges.
Retaining the lightweight rifle and carbine of the Ar-15/M16/M4 rifle, but moving up to the ballistically superior, modern cartridge developments are the right thing to do, the 6.5 Grendel is the best of these developments.
Tom Swift perfects his perfect infantry weapon,
offers to pay for production and distribution,
and is forbidden to do so, because it is N.I.H.
I’m not a weapon’s expert by any means, but if were going to be sent off to combat in Afghanistan, and could have my pick of any rifle I wanted, it would be a Springfield Armory M1A (M-14) Super Match, with some nice optics. That terrain is well suited for the .308 and even, dare I say, 30.06 rounds, and the conditions demand a rifle that will shoot no matter what. Full auto is nice, but that’s better left to crew served weapons like the SAW.
There are some companies doing cool things with the .308 round in regards to modernized battle rifles…time to get some of those to the troops. Even re-doing the M-16 for the 6.8 would be an improvement, and not that difficult.
But I think it’s well past time for the AR-15 and all if it’s bastard children to find their way to the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
Much like McArthur insisted on 30-06 for the Garand…because of ammo stocks of 30-06 were so high, changing ammo is affected by such factors.
Assault rifles were a compromise to replace rifles AND submachine guns by all participants toward the end of WW2. Then the advantage of one kind of ammo supply than 2-3. Compromises suck. Remember the US Army stuck to gas-powered M4 Sherman “Tommy-cookers” to ease fuel supply.
Here in SW Ontario, the coyoto hunters, hereabouts, use mini-14′s chambered for 5.6. Engagement ranges resemble Europe more than the plains or the desert. Regulations allow 270 max….which a few lads carry….for the long shots.
An associate admits the Mini-14′s semi-auto feature is frequently necessary to STOP Wylie.
“Remember the US Army stuck to gas-powered M4 Sherman “Tommy-cookers” to ease fuel supply.”
Um, the German’s tanks used gasoline, too. The problem with the Sherman wasn’t the fuel, but poor ammo stowage (and thin armor)- that’s what earned it names like “Tommy-cooker” and “Ronson.”
It’s true that we sent all diesel-engined Shermans to the Pacific- because the Navy used lots of diesel fuel and had it as part of the regular supply chain. It would have been a logistical nightmare to add diesel to the POL mix in the ETO.
And what diesel-engined Shermans didn’t go to the PTO went to the Russians under Lend Lease, for the same reason. Everything else they had was diesel-powered, other than the older BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks, which were mostly lost in the opening stages of Barbarossa. The T-34, IS-2, etc., were all diesels.
As to the German tanks, one of my uncles (besides the two Marines) was a Sherman troop CO in 2nd Armored. He said that the German Panther, which was probably the single most dangerous tank they deployed from our troops’ POV, was a “stone b***h” to kill from the front, but if you got a shot at it from either side, aiming at the hull side just below the rear half of the turret would be an almost guaranteed kill. There was a shell rack inside the hull over the top track run there on each side, and just aft of it was a fuel tank on each side, full of highly flammable gasoline. A Panther hit there tended to blow up on the spot.
cheers
eon
That was a poorly researched and written news story by a normally dependable Fox News. The editor of this story needs a serious slap on the wrist.
The 6.5 Grendel round is even better. All you’d have to do is switch out the upper receiver and barrel on the M4 and get new magazines. People do it in the civilian market all the time. It’s extremely easy to do.
About EON´s comments on the MG-3: The ROF is 1200rpm, and some countries also use a heavy bolt to reduce ROF a bit.
Also, the gun you describe as the M240 is in reality the Russian PKM. The M240 is a lot heavier, and have a higher ROF.
The MG-3, like the MG-42 it is descended from, has a buffer assembly in the stock which governs the rate of fire. The M-60 has a similar buffer assembly, also inspired by the MG-42′s setup.
Each MG-3 comes with two buffers, a “light” and a “heavy”. The “heavy” buffer is the standard one, which holds the ROF at 600 RPM, and is intended for the majority of battle shooting at infantry, light vehicles, and other targets normally engaged by the GPMG team.
The “light” buffer does indeed increase the ROF to 1200. It is intended for use in the low-level anti-aircraft/anti-helicopter mode, when the gun is firmly mounted on the light AA mount on top of a vehicle. (There are actually two such mounts in the inventory, one holding a single gun, the other holding a pair side-by-side.) The field manual strongly discourages using the “light” buffer in ground-gun mode except from a tripod mount, as the high ROF renders the gun very difficult to control.
Yes, the PKM (Pulemet Kalashnikov Maligobaritny- Machine Gun, Kalashnikov, Modified) does resemble the M240 mechanically, principally in its gas system and feedway setup, but it is not the same gun. The M240 is a product-improved FN MAG 58 (Mitrailleur A’ Gas- Gas-operated Machine Gun- Model 1958), which under various national designations has been the standard GPMG of about half of NATO for the last half-century. Among other things, the M240 uses the NATO standard 7.62 x51mm rimless round, while the PKM uses the older Russian 7.62 x54R rimmed Mosin-Nagant round; the two are decidedly not interchangeable, and the Russian round is not NATO standard.
While some use of the PKM has been made by U.S. forces, both as a “sanitized” weapon by special operations units and in training troops to handle foreign weapons likely to be encountered in the field, to the best of my knowledge it has never been a standard U.S. issue weapon.
cheers
eon
When I read the article it was clearly flawed. As others have stated the AK47 was intended as a close range machine gun and the M16 as a medium range rifle. The AK was meant to fire full auto and the M16 single shots or bursts (though it was often used full auto). The AK round was designed to put a target down quickly and easily, the M16 round for accuracy at range.
Anyway, I think a lot of people are missing a key point: what difference does it make if you can carry twice the ammo if it takes 3 rounds or more to put down a target? if you can’t shoot through cover effectively? It doesn’t make any sense to keep using a round that is known to lose most of its effectiveness in less than 100 yards when fired from a short-barreled carbine. The special ops guys have been pushing for something better than the 5.56 and have been using other calibers for a while. At least they have the budget to get what works.
I came to some different conclusions about the article (although I agree that FoxNews was wrong).
Here was my blog article: http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/05/25/657/
The basic problems with the article (and with this blog post):
- The “report” cited is not an Army report, it is the masters’ thesis of a US Army major, a student at the Command & General Staff College. There is a big difference between the two.
- Proposed M4 replacements, such as the XM8 cited in the article, use the same ammunition as the M4, use the same magazines – which are the source of most malfunctions – and would be no more accurate at long distance.
- Addressing equipment issues when the real problems are inadequate training and doctrine does not solve anything. It does not matter what weapon the average Soldier has, for the average Soldier is not capable of hitting a human at 600 yards with any weapon. Current Army training only goes out to 300 yards.
As to my qualifications, I served as a Navy Corpsman, a combat medic of sorts, with a Marine infantry platoon for a year in and around Fallujah, Iraq, during which time I trained with and carried an M4. I am intimately familiar with the capabilities of the M4 and would not hesitate to carry one in Afghanistan.
The difference between and offical Army report and a Major’s thesis – I trust the Major far more than the Army.
Well, feel free to actually read the Major’s report. It has been misrepresented in all of these blog posts (to a certain extent, even in mine) because everyone has their own agenda to push. In the case of this blog article, it’s a pro-caliber-change agenda – the basics of which I do not disagree with – but it has some fundamentally flawed assumptions.
It’s a complete myth that the AK-47 platform is inaccurate.
That depends on your definition of “inaccurate”. While a quality example of the weapon, using quality ammunition, is certainly capable of engaging human-sized targets out to 300m, where 7.62×39 really starts to fall out of the sky, it is not capable of the precision needed to shoot at humans half hidden behind rocks at 300-600m and beyond, where a fair percentage of firefights in Afghanistan occur.
Also, keep in mind that the weapons used by the Taliban are shoddy at best – the weapons are falling apart and many would be considered unserviceable by any competent armorer, Western or Eastern. Their ammunition is a grab bag of new and old production stuff – anything they can get their hands on. So it’s difficult to compare the total junk used by the Taliban with, say, a new production Arsenal AK-47 firing Lapua ammunition.
It is difficult to know where to start on this incorrect article that was to correct an incorrect article.
Definitions:( I can’t stand the morons who comment without understanding the correct terminology)
Cartridge= A single unit of fixed ammunition that consists of a primer, powder, a projectile or projectiles and an obturating vessel that contains everything together to fire one shot.
Round= A single unit of semi fixed ammunition that when assembled enables the weapon to fire a single shot.
Small arms do not shoot rounds they shoot cartridges. Our soldiers do not have to assemble each shot in the breach to fire the rifle. Rounds do not go down range bullets or projectiles go down range. A shell is a projectile that uses more than kenetic energy to defeat a target.
The 5.56 was first fielded with the M193 cartridge and the first rifles had a one turn in 12 inches twist. The combination of the 55 grain bullet with this twist made the bullet barely stabile so when it hit it tumbled. The A-2 rifles had the twist changed to one turn in 7 inches and the M855 cartridge with a steel penetrator in the projectile was increased in weight to 62 grains. This combination made the bullet very stabile. At short ranges it goes through flesh with very little knock down power. The hydrostatic shock is huge and the tissue around the path of the bullet is destroyed. The soldier is dead he just doesn’t know it. If this same projectile hits a bone the wound is catastrophic. The M855 has been changed to a faster burning powder to allow the powder to be burned in M-4′s shorter barrel. There have been other cartridges fielded in Afghanistan that used up to 77 grain bullets. The weight of this bullet is too great to be used with the faster burning powders so the bullets heavier than 62 grains must be fired in a full length rifle to achieve the ballistic potential. The technology allows heavy bullet cartridges for the M-16 to be accurate out to 1,000 yards.
The 7.62X39 cartridge fires a larger diameter heavier bullet at a far lower velocity. The twist used is excessive for normal stabilization and so it drills a nice hole through flesh. The muzzle velocity is just above the speed of sound in a body so unless the shooter is under 50 yards there is no hydrostatic shock. The heavier and larger diameter bullet does have more knock down power but less killing power. The great Burbank shootout is a prime example of the 7.62x39s lack of killing power. 14 cops were shot and none died. The difference in accuracy between an M-4 or M-16 and the AK47 is tremendous. An m-16 can put all shots in a one inch group at 300 yards with a high master rifleman. The same rifleman is hard pressed to to shoot a 12 inch group with an AK-47. I have friends who made scoped bolt action rifles for the 7.62X39 cartridge. They were disappointed because they were unable to get sub 1 minute of angle accuracy. My thoughts would be to retain the M-4 because it is so useful at short distances. If longer range is needed the soldiers should be issued another complete scoped upper receiver with a longer barrel to shoot longer range ammunition. It only takes a minute to change the upper receivers and the soldier doesn’t have to learn another trigger.
Our great advantage is we have the funds to train our soldiers in marksmanship. It really doesn’t matter what you are shooting if you miss.
David169, there is so much misinformation in your post…
- Hydrostatic shock is, without going too much into detail, essentially a myth
- M855 has poor terminal ballistics because it does not fragment reliably within a reasonable distance of entering the human body
- 77gr 5.56 is ideal for use in short barreled rifles, because it will fragment more reliably and at lower velocities
- 77gr 5.56 is not going to stay above the transonic region at 1000 yards out of a 20″ barrel
- No M16 will ever shoot a group smaller than 1″ at 300 yards, unless the “group” consists of one shot
“Hydrostatic shock is, without going into too much detail, essentially a myth.”
There really isn’t that much detail to “go into”. The “hydrostatic shock” theory was based on the assumption that a bullet that is supersonic in air would, on hitting the body, generate a shock wave in the liquid within, creating a disrupted or ‘avulsed’ area larger than the bullet itself. The “proof” was provide by shooting into gallon milk jugs full of water, etc.
Well, there are just two little problems with that;
1. There isn’t much actual “liquid volume” in a human or animal body. Most of it is fibrous tissue- muscle, cartilage, etc. What liquid there is (blood, lymph, etc.) is in small vessels and a few organs, like the heart. So except for a direct hit on one of those, you are not shooting at a liquid volume.
2. Even if you hit a liquid-filled space, the speed of sound in liquid is much higher than it is in air; about 4,000 feet-per-second versus about 1,100. Few bullets travel that fast; only the old .220 Swift varmint round consistently breaks 4,000 at the muzzle with factory ammunition, and it is infamous for blast, flash, recoil, and barrel erosion. No military rifle round comes closer than about 80% of its velocity. No 4,000 FPS+ in the target= no “shock wave”.
I know the effects of bullets and other penetrating objects from first-hand experience. From autopsies. So far, I’ve yet to see any wound channel that looks like a “hydrostatic shock” result.
cheers
eon
Andrew,
In 1995 we were shooting 1,000 yard matches with the 80 grain Betger VLD. In 1999 when the double based powders from Finland (Vitavori)came out we were able to make a cartridge that would work through the magazine and stay supersonic for 1,000 yards. The 77 grain bullets have a ballistic hollowpoint which may help fragmentation.
Hydrostatic shock is caused by the bullet traveling through flesh at a velocity higher than the speed of sound in the same flesh. It causes a supersonic shockwave in the tissue which ruptures a lot of the cell walls. Thats why you get “bloodshot” meat on a deer. And last but not least I have seen hundreds of 10 shot groups fired at 300 yards in the standing to prone rapid fire competition that were completely covered by 2 or three golf tees. Some of then could be covered with a dime. I used to go to Camp Perry every year and donate my time as a pit boss and referee. Go out and help at a match, you’ll lern a lot. I’ve been a reloader for over 53 years.
To David169, I first read Martin Fackler’s arguments against the idea of “hydrostatic shock” back in the 1980s in magazines like Military Technology and even in magazines like “Journal of Trauma” (I think that was its title, I’m operating from memory here.)(College library systems are wonderful things!)He made, to this layman, pretty convincing arguments that hydrostatic shock and the associated temporary wound channel are not major factors in a bullet’s “stopping power”. He argued that the permanent wound channel, and penetration were the important things.
Now as to the debate going on here. I have two points to make. According to a book on the WW II German paratroop rifle, which fired a full power like in the Mauser, it was kinda controlable on full auto until one removed the muzzle brake. That it had a straight line stock had nothing to do with making it controlable when set to full auto. This rifle was designed for the German paratroops, and retained a standard power cartridge after they got shot up at longer ranges by British forces during the Crete invasion.
Second, long ago, as the M-16 was replacing the M-14, the old and soon to be closed Franklin Arsenal designed a light weight (100 grains, and all steel I believe.)bullet for the M-14 that let the M-14 be controlable on full automatic fire. It was called the M256, I think. I read about in a book on arms control and later found a short article about it in an old Infantry Magazine I came across going through old issues at a military library.
I throw this information out to show there are ways, apparently to make a .308 rifle controlable when firing full automatic.
Comments?
Rifle308
Sorry, just remembered another interesting story as to full power rounds and full automatic firing. I’m reading “Crisis in the Pacific” which is an oral history collection about Americans in WW II in the Pacific. One soldier stated how much the BAR was valued for jungle or close fighting as it had little muzzle rise in full auto, unlike, according to him, the submachine guns did. He thought the controlability of the BAR was due to its 15 pound weight. This may have been the first model of the BAR, and likely had no bipod attached. Without the bipod the BAR looked like a conventional rifle with a thyroid condition. He also had very high regard for the M-1 Garand, saying that a trained soldier could fire rounds at an almost full auto rate.
I really wonder, at times, if we have really improved US Infantry hand held, small arms capabilities all that much since WW II? Lighter weight certainly, but at what cost of longer range capability, penetration power, and even stopping power? When was the last time a veteran of infantry combat remarked how the M-16 and its 5.56 bullet could penetrate a tree and kill an enemy soldier on the other side of it like one WW II vet remarked of the M-1 Garand and the 30.06?
I remember the M256 round. It used a 125-grain bullet at about 2300 FPS. The Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, with their Type 64 7.62 NATO rifle, and the Spanish Army, with their CETME 7.62 NATO (the original version of the Heckler & Koch G3) actually issued similar rounds to the troops, in addition to the standard full-power 7.62 NATO ammunition. As you state, the intent was to make it possible to fire the 7.62 NATO rifles on full-auto while retaining control of them.
The M-14 never worked satisfactorily with the “light load”, as it generated insufficient gas back-pressure to consistently operate the action. The Type 64 had an adjustable gas system like the FN FAL, and the CETME is a recoil-operated rifle with a fluted chamber, so they worked better with the reduced-charge rounds.
Of course, if you use an M-14 with a reduced-charge load like that, you’re complicating your logistics train; you really need to avoid getting the light-loaded 7.62 NATO mixed up with the standard high-velocity ammo for the M-60 GPMG, which is finicky enough with the full-powered round. Having two loads like that might work for the Japanese and Spanish forces, who operate almost exclusively on their home soil, but with forces operating worldwide it’s a different story.
Also, an M-14 firing a 125-grain bullet at 2300 FPS is basically duplicating the ballistics of the AK-47, in a larger and heavier platform. Why bother?
In the end, the JGSDF and Spanish Army both went for 5.56, and gave up on the “light-loaded 7.62 NATO” idea, anyway. The CETME Model L in 5.56 is, IMHO, one of the all-around neatest 5.56 rifles out there. As for the JGSDF, they adopted a modified Swiss SIG SG-530 rifle.
cheers
eon
eon, I know of the cartridge you are writing about, but that is not the one I am referring to. Maybe I have not remembered the designation right. The cartridge I am referring to had a bullet of only 90 grains, (All steel if I remember correctly.) and the muzzle velocity was at least 3100 ft/sec. It was supposed to allow the M-14 to be controlable in full automatic according to the Franklin Arsenal, who also came up with a side folding buttstock and a pistol grip to replace the conventional stock of the M-14.
Sorry it took me so long to reply, been distracted.
Rifle308
No problem, I may have the wrong number too (there are so many of them).
I was aware of the 125-grainer because the JGSDF and Spanish Army credited U.s. Army Ordnance with the original design. They failed to mention that it didn’t work well in the M-14.
A 90-grain bullet at 3,100 would (according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations) only have about 80% of the gas pressure of the standard 7.62 x 51 load, so it would be borderline in function in the M-14, and in the M-60, forget it. A better idea would have been to build a new rifle around it, since it would have had slightly more energy at all ranges than the later 5.56 rounds, in the same ballpark as the 7.62 x39, but had a somewhat longer effective range and flatter trajectory than the “.32 Russian Short”, due to higher MV. Of course, it would also shed velocity faster than either one, due to lower sectional density. A better idea would have been a .25 caliber 90-grainer, sort of like the old 6.5 x 55 Swedish Mauser, which has a decent SD even with a bullet that light.
(BTW, AK bore spec is closer to .320 than .308, reflecting the fact that they still use the bore spec of the barrel-making machinery that the Czar imported from Germany a century or so ago. They called it “7.62″ because the old Czarist term was a “tres linaya” ["three-line"] rifle bore, a “line” being an old Russian standard measure equal to about 1/10″. The Soviets just divided out 3/10″ by 4 to get to 7.62- without ever actually miking a bore or a rifling cutter, apparently.)
I think a lot of people get fooled by the AK rifles’ “look”. They seem to have a conventional “drop” stock comb, but if you look closely, the bore line is also low, which means that the top of that “drop” stock is still above the line of recoil, meaning it kicks more-or-less straight back even in full auto fire. That setup was taken more-or-less “straight” from the original German MkB-42/Mp-43/StG-44 family of assault rifles, apparently, and it’s a good idea.
Several predecessors of the M-14 had various “straight-line” stock designs. The T-28 had one that looked like it was “upside down” behind the semi-pistol grip, with a stock comb that looked more like a stock “toe”. The T-25 had one with three “steps” in the comb, requiring the shooter to have a neck as limber as Reed Richards (of “Fantastic Four” fame) to get a proper sight picture. It later became the T-47, with a conventional stock- and climbed uncontrollably in full-auto fire.
Even John C. Garand came up with a “lightweight” .30 rifle, the T-31, which was a bullpup like the modern day Enfield 5.56, with elevated sights like the German FG-42. The major problem with it was that it was intended to fire the full-grown .30-06 round, which meant that even with a nearly perfect “straight line” recoil axis it just kicked too hard for accurate shooting at its weight (midway between the M-1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine). Plus, I suspect few infantrymen were anxious to cuddle 89,000 CUP worth of breech pressure up to their cheeks.
Not to mention the classic problem with a self-loading bullpup- in a firefight, how do you shoot around a left-hand corner without getting a hot case up your nose? The British Army says, “take two steps out from the corner, and maintain fire from the right shoulder” in the Enfield’s manual. I’m sure the average British soldier has a few things to say about that brainstorm, none of them printable.
Any way you slice it, full-powered .30 cartridges aren’t compatible with full-auto rifle fire. And cartridges that are, are lower-powered and aren’t compatible with rifles designed for a “full .30″ load.
Physics wins, every time.
cheers
eon
Fact is, the barrel on an AK flexes when it’s fired. And not the same way every time. It is fundamentally inaccurate because of this aspect of its design. Not sure why it happens but you can see it on a YouTube vid, google it. I also have spent time shooting AKs and they are very difficult to score repeat hits on small targets with. My examples were all brand new, Romanian-sourced, very good quality.
Obviously its useful and sturdy and dependable. It fires under awful conditions and can be abused and still work. But so can the M4. The AK’s primary virtue is its low price. It is not inherently accurate, and all best conditions must occur if it is to be useful beyond 200 yds.
David
The Mk262 77gr 5.56mm ammunition chronographs at just shy of 2800fps out of a 20″ barrel. 77s are not 80s and 80s will not fit in the M16 magwell. At 1000 yards, the 77gr projectile is below the speed of sound when fired from the 20″ barrel of an M16A2/A4. It is certainly possible to shoot accurately at 1000 yards with a 24-26″ barrel shooting 80s, maybe even a 20″ barrel, but those loads will not work in the M16 unless you single load them and therefore have no relevance to a discussion of the M16 and its capabilities.
Again, hydrostatic shock as you present it is a myth. You do not understand the wounding mechanisms of fragmenting 5.56mm ammunition and your interpretations of anecdotal accounts have no relevance here.
You are either lying or you do not know what you saw. There is no way that an M16 fired those groups. It does not matter if you have been a reloader for 1000 years, you are working from incorrect information about the capabilities of the M16 platform. For a semi-auto, off the rack, M16A2/M16A4 to consistently shoot ten shot 1″ groups at 100 yards would be a miracle, and you are claiming that they shot 1″ at 300 yards, even 1/2″ at 300 yards? That would be like shooting ten shot 1/6″ to 1/3″ groups at 100. That is beyond impossible. I do not think that I have much to “lern” from you.
The AK-47 isn’t the ideal weapons platform for Afghanistan either. The Soviets had a lot of trouble with their AKs as well when they invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s. Their muj enemies were using old school bolt action rifles which greatly outranged the Soviet AK-47. Me personally if I was fighting in Afghanistan I’d want a semi-automatic sniper rifle with a large magazine capacity such as the M110. It’s a good balance between being able to engage long range while still being capable at urban combat in a pinch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J63CnkB9juA
I, an engineer, did a paper study in support of the future combat weapon. A few facts became obvious, at least to a golfer. There is no perfect tool, it it the reason the golf bag was invented. For combat firearms, the platform, and the target have not changed since firearms were invented. I was awed to learn that the M-2, 50 cal. MG, “Deuce” has changed very little in over a century. Essentially, by 1910 – 11, most of the US basic gun designs were established, rifle and automatic pistol. The 30-06, 30 cal., introduced in 1906, became the auto loading M-1, with the same cartridge, by order of General MacArthur. Every Wednesday I visit an old Marine who went into Guadalcanal with a bolt action Springfield. After the battle, the Sargents had to literally pry them out of men’s hands, and distribute the new fangled M-1. “If the bolt doesn’t pinch your thumb when loading the magazine, you are doing it wrong.” It later evolved into the M-14. These are ideal long range weapons. The M-16 was developed for short range combat where logistics could support high firing rates. The M-4 is the shorter variant. Neither would be ideal for long ranges.
It is obvious that leaders must choice today, on weapon options that must be used in an unknown place, against an unknown enemy, in the future. The warriors who will use them, demand a weightless weapon, which never needs maintenance, until that minute of horror, when it must shoot for miles and deliver a canon’s impact, a thousand times per minute. So that they may stay alive. People who do, or did this for my benefit, have earned my profound respect, and thanks.
Sir, not to be a wiseguy, especially as you have contact with an actual WW II veteran, but accounts that I have read told of Marines, or at least one Marine, keeping an eye on an Army guy waiting for for him to get hit so he could grab that soldier’s M-1 Garand.
I believe, once they had used the M-1 in battle, that few Marine grunts would have wanted the bolt action Springfield back. I am always struck at the level of affection for the M-1 Garand expressed by the veterans who fought with it.
Rifle308
“There is no perfect tool, it it the reason the golf bag was invented.”
DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!
That is the real answer. There is no one weapon that is ideal for all circumstances. Some are more suited to a wider range of tasks than others but it is impossible for ANY tool to be a perfect fit for every situation.
The 5.56 is pretty versatile. Everything is a trade-off. The bullet needs to be heavy enough to hit effectively but light enough to carry lots of them. Is there something that would be a better all-around compromise? Probably. If we could agree on exactly what that is, maybe the DOD could be convinced to change.
The AR family are decent generalist’s weapons. M4 is preferred by most soldiers in Iraq (now) because it’s shorter, lighter, easier to get in and out of vehicles and buildings with. Most don’t expect to, and don’t, get into serious shootouts. I did Iraq in ’04 and we were still carrying M16A2s for the most part. Most troops then wanted M4s because they’re shorter. Most don’t know or sweat about the details of round performance. (I said ‘most’, not ‘all’)
Is there a better all-around compromise design existing or possible? Probably. Again, what is it?
Personally, I favor the modular approach, allowing caliber and configuration changes on a common platform. You can make a hammer drive screws, but a screwdriver works much better.
It’s disturbing to see so many articles and so much discussion among Americans, (military and civilian) than center around 1. the weapon, 2. the ammunition that do not accurately define the problem. But more importantly when discussion addresses these two primary concerns with respect to a vaguely understood problem they miss another great big item all together.
Americans (military and civilian) seem to think that we are born with a God given talent to shoot firearms. That is far from the case. Americans also like to believe that its Soldiers are highly trained accurate marksmen. That is far from the truth. In one group of 16,000 Soldiers 34% of them have qualified with their weapon in the last year. Less than a quarter of that number qualified “Expert.”
Expert in the Army is “hitting” a 20″ by 40″ target at least 36 out of 40 shots at ranges from 50 to 300 meters, the targets are located in a narrowly confined lane and fully expose themselves for several seconds. This qualification is so easy it is laughable. Yet this is the standard by which all units are judged. To simply qualify, a Soldier has to hit at least 23 of these targets under those conditions.
To be qualified for combat a Soldier typically gets 18 rounds to zero his M4 that is equipped with a set of adjustable iron sights, an M68 Close Combat Optic red dot sight, and maybe a night aiming laser. The Army only requires that troops zero their M68 Close Combat Optic, not the iron sights and not the laser before certifying them for combat. Then the Soldier heads over to the qualification range where he qualifies with his M4 using that M68 CCO to fire his 40 rounds to earn a qualification. He never qualifies on the iron sights or the laser aiming light. His “Night qualification” is done on a simulator called the “engagement skills trainer 2000″ or EST 2000.
The EST was a defense contractors dream. It probably employs a few hundred retired officers. The Army uses it to save on ammunition. Let me ask you, how much ammo could the Army purchase with the amount of money paid out in a single death benefit paid to survivors? I submit that there might be a few more Soldier around today had we trained them properly.
Soldiers are only trained to engage targets out to 300 meters. Over 50% of the direct fire engagements in Afghanistan happen at 500 meters or more.
The ignorant press and public are quick to throw a new weapon into GI Joe’s hands. The weapon isn’t the problem. It’s the lack of tough, realistic, firearms training. We don’t teach everyone how to shoot accurately. A 20″ by 40″ target sitting still within 300 meters out in the open is not reality. To get a kill with a single round you have to destroy the brain or heart or interrupt the central nervous system – none of which is 20 by 40 inches. We don’t train Soldiers to fire with their offhand, how to do quick magazine change drills; the level of marksmanship skill is very low in the Army. If the GAO took a critical look at the level of marksmanship skill among Soldiers the public would be shocked.
The answer would be words to the effect that we don’t need to have trained riflemen, we have technology. Technology comes with collateral damage. A single bullet fired by a properly trained rifleman (not a sniper) limits collateral damage (civilians) at the same time killing enemies and perhaps more importantly – not making more of enemies by killing innocent locals.
Crew served weapons – machine guns, and mortars are normally employed by conventional forces to engage enemy forces beyond 500 meters. With the use of these supporting arms often times comes dead innocent civilians. Because the Army refuses to spend the time and money to train its Soldiers how to shoot. Much of the pre deployment training is spent on JAG briefs, suicide prevention, cultural awareness, and other offal… anything but true marksmanship.
It doesnt matter what the Army puts in the hands of Soldiers, to me – a senior combat arms non commissioned officer with several combat deployments – this is more defense contractor pork.
We already have weapons and equipment in the inventory to accurately and effectively kill enemy fighters with precision rifle fire, we just don’t train to do that.
Is the 6.8 or 6.5 bullet a better choice? Depends on the environment and the mission. The M4 is best for close range engagements, but in the hands of highly trained Soldiers it is very effective out to 600 meters. There are alternatives to the M855 62 grain 5.56 ammuntion we use that are more accurate and more effective at extended ranges. The Army should stick with the M855 for the M249 SAW and issue the 77 grain Mk 262 OTM for the riflemen. I’d also like to see at least one rifleman in a squad carrying the M16A4 rather than an M4 for the long range stuff. I would add the Leupold MR/T 2.5-8 power with the tactical milling reticle to that riflemans M16A4 with a Docter Optic or D point red dot sight mounted to the rear scope ring for close range work.
But really it comes down to training rather than equipment or ammunition. Each Soldier ought to be taught how to use a data book, how to read wind, how to calculate MOA, to accurately estimate range, and each Soldier should have to qualify quaterly on an unknown distance range at least 500 meters long with most of the targets at 500 meters or greater. Junk the EST 2000 and build more ranges. Teach NCO’s how to set up and run ranges. NCO’s ought to be highly skilled marksmanship instructors approaching subject matter expert status. It’s worth a human life isnt it?
I could not agree with you more. Our gear is good enough. Our issue in the Marine Corps is being properly trained to use the ACOG. We spend a lot of time teaching Marines how to use Iron sights, but very little on how to properly use the Optics at long distances.
A good military requires good training AND good equipment.
Several years back I got the opportunity to talk to a group of guys who had just shipped stateside from an Iraq deployment (funny we were at an unsupervised outdoor firing range). One related a story where he put 8-9 m4 rounds into the windshield of a car approaching his position. The driver got out of the car and started yelling at them even though he was hit. Needless to say that soldier didn’t have much confidence in the utility of his weapon for his mission.
A former neighbor of mine was in vietnam in a position which was overrun during the Tet offensive. During that engagement he came to utterly despise his rifle and his inability to find one on the ground near him that still was operable (granted since them many many millions have been poured into polishing the m4 turd). He grabbed an ak-47 to continue the fight.
eon –
your figures on the ROF for the MG-34 are incorrect, it fired alot more than 600rpm; was more like 800-900.
moreover, what’s amazing is that not only did German machine gun design far outstrip ours in all areas, but even in the Korean War the Army & the Marines was still using the water jacketed M1917! hello? what are these people, asleep at the switch?
5.56 was designed to be fired from a 20″ barrel. The current carbines used dramatically hurt range and killing power. Carbines are problematic because they don’t allow full powder burn for maximum velocity and stability.
wound channel is determined entirely by who manufactures the bullet. Bigger bullets with high fragmentation do more damage than smaller bullets with high fragmentation. American 7.62×51 does not fragment, german manufacture at one time did.
6.5mm grendel is a nice round *except* the dramatic bottlneck makes it inherently unreliable for feeding. Note the 7.62×39 has almost no neck…the round itself is reliable.
M4 design is fundamentally flawed (and a french design). Waste gasses should always be exhausted away from a rifle, not back into the feeding mechanism.
“full auto” mode for rifles is very bad. Burst mode is the highest cycle rate that can be effective.
I would like to see a new rifle designed around a reliably feeding 6.5mm round, 6.5mm being an extremely stable round ballistically over very long distance. Making an efficient carbine will be the biggest challenge here.
We have an american design/manuf rifle that should be considered as a platform. Made in Utah, robarm xcr looks to be a fine product. Screw the foreign stuff, lets get a good home grown rifle going!
The ROE should not be a factor in determining rifle or ammo standards.
Our people should have access to air, artillery, or whatever, whenever they feel the need. A fair target is anything in advance of your position that appears threatening. The welfare of our men must come first.
In Korea, the M3 was good up close and the M1, with an expert behind it, dropped some at 88 yards.
Eight hundred, that is.
Hi, first of all, I would like to let you know that I think it’s a superb web-site you have got here. What I wanted to ask is, I haven’t find out how to add your web site rss in my rss subscriber, where is the link to the rss feed? Thank you