Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire More M4 5.56 problems in Afghanistan

6.8 is more lethal at close to medium range and better through barriers, also packs about as much ammo per weight as 5.56, but it's pretty poor at long range, even bested by 5.56 shooting heavies. As someone mentioned, Grendel or 6br would be great at range but you loose ammo carrying capacity and I do worry a bit about feeding problems that could crop up if widely deployed.

I have no idea of just what kind of crap a Grunt carries in his ruck these days, but I do know what we carried and yeah, it was heavy. 7,62 NATO rifles and ammo are just fine. I re-state-LOSE THE SELECTIVE FIRE!!!! I've been in a few where some guys would be blowing off magazines like they were popcorn. It might have made them "feel better" but it sure as hell wasn't killing anybody. Ya wanna be reasonably safe in combat?? Kill every mothers son of them. Never saw one scared to death or even much impressed by being missed.

"Even with a .30/06, body shots with a high stability 7.62 projectile are unreliable."

WTF, Over ?

GTC

ET,
Your post reminds me of that saying(can't remember who first said it):
"shots fired do not constitute firepower, shots on target do."

It's the simple truth. I'd trade a .30/06 shooting fmj for a .243 shooting expanding bullets any day of the week. As I stated earlier, even when the .30/06 was the cartridge of our battle rifles, it wasn't regarded as reliable for center-of-mass 1 shot stops. fmj projectiles do best when they hit bone. If you miss bone, you may or may not have good results.

The military should go to green bullets, 70 gr Barnes TTSX's, they never over penetrate!

On the money and why? because he's been there! jorge

Point missed, obviously.......

I thought "wounding" was the point of warfare. One incapacitated soldier takes 2 more to care/evac them. I thought that is why they shoot FMJ and not fragmenting rounds. Shoot to injure, not to kill.

But I've never been there.

basic teaches shoot center mass, get them down, just as you say POC. Me, I prefer dead!

Not quite. Had we bombed the cities, dykes, dams electrical complexes, POL, Railheads into China, mined Hai Phong, established a blockade it WOULD have worked. We bombed a lot of jungle in Vietnam and once again, all roads lead to democraps....jorge

yup the socoms stink

Using 5.56 NATO out of 14" barrels in massed fire isn't going to be as effective at long ranges as 7.62X39 from AK-47s. You cannot argue with physics.

Somebody needs to ask the guys there, on the ground what they need. Then just [bleep] get it for them, stand back and let them do their job.

And, again, your experience is exactly what on this matter?

Simply put, you're speculating with absolutely zero first-hand knowledge, and looking like an idiot doing so.

Hint: it ain't just M4s. Add in the 249s, 240s, M2s, MkIXs...

Second hint: if you don't know wtf you're talking about, stop talking.

The 6.8 SPC is the answer to the problem , barrel and bolt change and you are ready to go or just issue our troops the AK-47.

I believe the topic was a comparison of the AK-47 (7.62x39) vs the M4 (5.56 NATO) regarding long range terminal effectiveness.

Agreed on both counts.

Um, no. You're the one that brought up the "massed fire" line of thinking, when you've not a fuggin' clue.

And, it shows.

Our troops are handcuffed by DSMFer ROEs because some folks back here in the states can't decide whether they want to actually win a war, or whether they want to whine about whether we ought to be there or not. Too late for that schit; the fight's on.

As for "massed fire", you're completely clueless if you think it's M4s vs. AKs for "massed fire". We've got M4s, M16A2s, M249s, M240s, MkIXs, M2s... vs. AKs, RPKs, RPGs, SKSs, and just about anything else they can find.

Our guys could win the damned battles with Marlin 39s, if the ROEs didn't suck dog-ass. As it is, you could give them all M60s, and they'd still be taking it on the chin.

The M4 wasn't designed or anticipated for this kind of conflict, and yes, the .223 leaves a goodly bit to be desired as for a battle round, but the ROEs are the problem more than the round or the platform, and any bullschit excuse of "massed fire" being a root problem is simply talking out your ass; you're completely without any grounding or basis in this topic, and so off-base it's borderline ridiculous.

Let's stop screwing around re-issue brand new M-1 Garands to the infantry and be done with it. I bet with modern technology it be an even better rifle in a second generation rifle.