Our troops are not equipped correctly.

I think this a main problem right here, the guy in charge. My opinion but it doesn't sound like he knows what he is talking about.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/military-reconsiders-armys-use-m-rifles-afghanistan/

The U.S. military is re-evaluating the Army�s use of the M4 rifle in Afghanistan following concerns that the Taliban�s primitive AK-47�s are proving more effective.

The M4 is an updated version of the M16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. But while the weapon is better suited for the kind of urban warfare common in Iraq, some have questioned whether it is deadly and accurate for Afghanistan � where U.S. troops often find themselves in long-range combat.

An Army study found that the 5.56mm bullets fired from the M4s don�t retain enough velocity past 1,000 feet to kill an enemy. In Afghanistan, forces are often up to 2,500 feet apart.

�It just makes no sense,� said Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., a Fox News military analyst.

Scales said the M4 is �unsuitable� for Afghan terrain and �notoriously unreliable� in the first place. The Army Times reported on an Army weapons test three years ago that found the M4 performed worse than three other newer carbines when subjected to an �extreme dust test.�

Problems with the M4 locking up were also cited in a study last year on a July 2008 firefight that left nine U.S. soldiers dead in eastern Afghanistan.

The Taliban are meanwhile using heavier bullets that allow them to fire at U.S. and NATO troops from distances that are out of range of the M4.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. The sharpshooters are equipped with the new M110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet.

As for what could ultimately replace the M4, the Army�s center for small-arms development is trying to find a solution.

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said the M4 has the advantage of more-rapid firepower.

�The 5.56 caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,� he told The Associated Press. But he acknowledged the weapon is much less effective at 2,000 feet out.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56 mm and 7.62 cartridges, Tamilio said.

Scales said the U.S. military simply needs to engineer a better weapon � he said the M8, a weapon that was under development before being halted several years ago, could be revived and improved for Afghanistan.

�We�re the world�s largest superpower. Why don�t we just make one,� Scales said. �This isn�t rocket science. We�re not putting a man on the moon here.�

Yeah okay...

How 'bout we engineer a better overall battle plan instead.

Like blow the mutherphuckers straight to hell with lots of very large explosions that leave nothing standing, asap, and get out of there once and for all.....

At close quarter the M4 is great get over 200 and they are not. If I had my choice I'd take a 45 for close work and an M14 for everything else.

I like your idea best windswalker but just in case we don't go that route I nominate the 6.8 SPC. Especially in Barrett Rec7. 163bc

I think an M14 would be nice in such country.
Why not let Springfield Armory build a slug of M1A1s for the Army and USMC in "The Stans"?

AMEN Brother! Peace thru Superior Firepower.

We [bleep] up how we fight wars when we started having to ask permission to shoot azzholes that are trying to shoot us.

Search and destroy....war isn't a place for nice.

The Corps qualifies at 500 with the M4, no?

Show me as many AK toting ragheads that can do the same........

No doubt in my mind the the US military will adopt a weapon suited for that specific application....about 10 years after our troops are gone from Afgahnistan.


Mike

The problem with dust has been discussed and has an easy solution, but it was declined...

Then also just going to a different cartridge will also address the problem of longer range punch....

6.5 Grendal, or a 6.5 BR...

and yeah, they should be making M14s again...chambered in a 260 or 7/08 equivalent...

No. Not M4s. M16A2s.

Reissue the friggin' M16A2s, strip off all the "tacti-cool" bullschit, and let them start killing people.

Same round.....

Don't matter anyway, until we can bring ourselves back to fighting like we did in WWII we will continue fighting Viet Nams, Iraqs, and Afghanistans......

Same round, yes. Much different velocity. Therein lies a good bit of difference as to lethality downrange.

Agreed, on the fighting ROEs.

you cannot win a war unless you occupy territory or so someone says...

we burned entire cities to the ground in WWII, the cost of war became too much for the populace...now wars are run by political pussys, there is no hope.

I agree regards a 20 inch barreled gun with a 1-7 twist shooting a heavier bullet...we have lost our way, bullchitt reigns supreme.

+1

Our problem isn't the M4, the 5.56, 5.5 inches of barrel length, or 80 fps muzzle velocity.

Unless the fight is fought on the 'net by rifle loonies........

No, there is an actual difference in downrange effectiveness.

However, agreed, that the biggest problem is the ROEs.

We aren't exactly fighting the Third Reich, or the Japanese Empire...

If we were conducting War like we did then, this would have been long over, by now.

It isn't the troops fault.......

No individual raghead needs to do that. They can use massed fire at longer ranges than can US soldiers using M4s.

And, you know this exactly how?

Of course, we can't use massed fire at all, huh? Damned M240s and M249s can't do that, right? MkIXs must suck at it... M2s fail, I guess.

Try guessing on something where you actually have a semblence of a clue. Hint: this ain't one of those topics.

Well, that is, unless you ask the leftists, the .gov apologists, the lie-berals, and the MSM.

I don't [bleep] care if we fight on the ground with blue baseball bats instead of red ones.

The whole thing went out the window when we started being nice.

Burn it down...........

No disagreement there, amigo.

The military's job is to go to distant lands, see unique things - and break them, meet interesting people - and kill them, and then come the [bleep] home.

Go there, break stuff, kill damned near anyone/everyone, and GTFO.

Make your "visit" so memorable that no one else ever wants to contemplate "enjoying" the same.

When we lost that, we lost.

Man, that was a GOOD reply VA.

Drinking and typing are a bad combo....

Consider the source.....

Couldn't agree more....on both counts.

I will withhold comment on the whole M4 / 5.56 issue, but I will note that I see flights of A-10's almost daily here in the Ouachita's.

Seems to me they could be put to much better use in Afghanistan than here. Instant close air support would tend to make the whole infantry weapon issue a moot point, would it not?

Close-air ain't a bad thing. But, boots on the ground, securing real estate = victory.

When you keep patroling the same circuit, trying ti find new bad guys who've replaced the ones you killed yesterday or last week, and allow them to retain control of their turf, you don't win.

Never, ever refight for the same ground. ALWAYS take the fight to the enemy, take their positions, and make them die for their country/beliefs.

Those ROEs are as old as warfare, and never waver from true.

Well, there's ragheads... and then there's ragheads...

Rifles are part of the traditional Afghan culture in that open country. Winston Churchill wrote of 'em....

"To the ferocity of the Zulu are added the craft of the Redskin and the marksmanship of the Boer,"

I believe more'n a few of our casualties there have been from aimed rifle fire .

Birdwatcher

I agree 100%. But I think boots on the ground works better after you blow their fortifications / hiding places to schit with air power.

I believe this was pretty much what was happening at the beginning of the Afghan operation, Spec Ops infiltrating enemy territory and ID'ing targets, air power taking out targets, and then infantry coming in and mopping up. It was working then, we should still be doing it now, "collateral damage" be damned.

As a former grunt, I'm all for "softening" schit up. Do so, at will.

And, you're right. That was what was occurring, or at least that was the implication.

Of course, that's prior to having the Manchurian Muslim and his merry band of defeatists in power.

The media requires us to not only win our wars, but to do so with style points. Simple victory is insufficient. Not only must we win, but those we defeat must love us and acknowledge our victory as the best possible outcome of the war.

We give candy with one hand and cluster bombs with the other. Like our policy, our wars are schizophrenic.

The object of war is to break the will of the enemy to resist, i.e., to subjugate the enemy. Our desire for them to love us as well is simple hubris and delusion.

My personal philosophy of war aside, it would seem reasonable in this day and age to create a rugged, reliable, accurate rifle with modest recoil and rapid fire capability able to inflict decisive damage to the enemy at a reasonable cost per unit.

Of course, in no way does the AR15/M16/M4 platform fit this description. We've only known that for 45 years. Sigh.

Yeah, the tribal cultures of Iran and Afghanistan are legendary marksmen. And in truth, we're probably lucky they switched from their Enfields and Persian Mausers to the AK. If they had those, they would seriously outrange us.

Drinking??? Drinking alone will cause that much consistently annoying drivel year after year??? I've been thinking some kind of hybrid psychiatric disorder...

Do they make breathalyzers for keyboards

Beyond ANY shadow of doubt, this is Pontification, in it's purest sense.

Just EXACTLY how much time do you have on the M4 system there, Pit-Bull Man ?

GTC

It's the 'massed Fire thing that FLOORED me.

General Ferdinand Foch has spoken ?

GTC

Soldiers of any flavor hate and fear that which kills and maims them the most. US Troopers hate and fear IEDs,Taliban and El Qaida hate and fear airpower. WWll Germans greatly hated and feared our artillery. We greatly hated and feared the MG 42 MGs. If we want to win and instill real fear, our Soldiers are going to have to be doing the real killing. Massed fire never seemed to make much difference. WTF good is 10,000 misses per minute?? Give the guys a GOOD powerful,accurate rifle and throw the selective fire crap away. Leave that to the MGs. TEACH EVERY SWINGIN' DICK TO SHOOT!!! WWl the standard was evrybody had to hit a man size target at 500 yds and a head shot at 250. RELIABLY! Change the ROE and make the Troopers killers..AGAIN!!

Suspect the typist maybe wearing spandex... needs to stay ready in case the pick up driving Negro attempts to turn him into roadkill again... in his own living room...in the third story condo...

Hey it could happen

In a very CERTAIN sense, I'm lucky,...Hawkeye's got me on ignore,

and I guess he figured things out.

See, I don't REALLY live in S.E. Az.

I'm a doped up negro with a pickup,.....from Fla.

GTC

I know that... I also know you need to learn to drive faster. Need to send you off to an offensive driving school.

EvilTwin nailed it.

Yeah he did.

GTC

Some good posts here on a couple of subjects.

Well said.

In my finite mind I'm thinking taking the 7.62x39 round and necking down to 6.5x39, 123g bullet.
Use the same AK Magazine if you have to.

I notice that Hornady has a new load in 7.62X39- a 123gr? Vmax, I think it is, with a steel case to help keep costs down.
That could have some potential...

It's all about the ROE, if yer hands are tied with bullschit engagment rules, you friggin die, it ain't the politicians kids or relatives being killed by stupidity, it is OUR friends and family. Politicians think the ROE's do good things, they do nothing but murder our brethren. Take the kid gloves off and let them engage and kill the friggin enemy. Infantry is supposed to kill the bad guy, break schit so it can't be used again and hold the high ground so it can be effectively controlled, but there isn't a Son Of A Bitch in the congress that understands that! Les

Have you seen the prices of a M1A1 lately? My guess is the army can't afford them.

Ain't that the truth.
I really want one of the M1A1 syn stock, shortened barrel jobs.
That with an ACOG and I would be in pig's heaven.

Kamerad_Les - have to agree with you there.

I'm SICK of hearing the BS about politicians who "support our troops" but put them in this situation. I never served personally but respect and appreciate the heck out of all those who have. The sentiment in this thread of "take the gloves off" is absolutely spot on in my book.

Our military should be used to get in, do what has to be done, and get out. While there, they should be unhindered by ROE rules from some desk jockey back here. What our politicians do to our military should be criminal.

If it's worth sending them in, it's worth letting them do their job the right way.

I really LOVE my "Squad Scout",......it's a real strong running rifle.

The "Socom" is a bit of an oddball,.....a friend's got one, and accuracy is OK, but the damn thing is LOUD, and looks like a flare going off in low light.

We've handed standard MIAs, Scouts, and Socoms back and forth on the line, and all agree that the Scout's Muzzle break is the best performer, and quickest back on target,......

Not cheap, but worth every dollar. Maybe if we jerked the U.N. up short, and cut off their welfare check, we COULD afford to equip our fine fightin' folk with em'.

Oh, better yet, laterally transfer alla'the funds going to Felipe Calderone's little racket,.......to the purchase of these fine rifles.

GTC

GTC,
I am envious.
My little brother has(not sure of the exact name) an M1A1 with the full length barrel, iron sights(no Pic rail) and a simple syn stock.
That SOB is a shooter-I am going to 'borrow' it from him when he deploys to Iraq this Summer...
:gri:

Guys, ya gotta remember, they need to keep the cartidges about the size they are, soldiers have to hump enough schit on their back. 180 rds of 5.56 is a schit load lighter to carry than 180 rounds of 7.62. I can see the 6.8 being a good round. How many here have had to carry 3-400 rounds of 7.62 on my back, I know Sean and MontanaMarine have gotten to experience that joy. It ain't fun! Basic battle carry for an extended patrol for the typical Army grunt is six 30 round mags, plus 200 in a box, in your ruck.

I know, I know, the guys in WWII and Korea didn't have issues, but we have good ammo for the 5.56 right now, jst the M4 with that little short barrel takes away some range, Sean hit it dead on, issue M16A2's, give them the range back, big effin deal it is a bit longer and it isn't tacticool, I'd rather be able to make the long shots when it counts!

Les,
I believe it.
Doesn't the Army at present have M14s issued to what do they call em, 'Scout Snipers?'in theatre??

Not anymore:

Afghan Marksmen-Forget the Fables

As I recall, 840 rounds of 5.56 fit into a box, while only 200 rounds of 7.62x51 fit in the same box. Weren't .50 BMG something like 105 rounds to a (larger) box?

Anyway, one of the major selling features of the 5.56 was the ability to carry more rounds for the same weight. Obviously, if it takes one 3 rounds to disable an opponent instead of 1, the weight savings may be moot.

Remember this though: in Korea the rule was 2 in the chest or 1 on the head. Even with a .30/06, body shots with a high stability 7.62 projectile are unreliable.

Never had a problem with the 5.56 rags drop when properly punched in the breadbasket, but I humped a SAW or a 60. Much prefered the battle carry for the saw over the 60, let me tell ya!

That was tried in Vietnam once upon a time. Didn't work very well.

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.

Only if the ROEs didn't screw the pooch. Which, they would.

As for the M1 Garand; she's a heavy pig, but DAMN is that thing effective.

If i was a soldier in the Sand Box the MI Garand would suit me fine.

Agreed completely.

Had this discussion before TRH, I will take an M4 over an AK 7 days a week, we can go out to 300 yards and see who hits who 1st, guarantee it won't be the guy with the AR getting hit 1st. AK's just are not that accurate at 300 yards, and at 500 yards I'll even do it in the open with the AK holder behind cover.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I specified massed fire. For aimed fire at distance, I'd rather have an M4. Would prefer a longer barrel, though.

The rags cannot match the massed fire of our military, trust me on this, the thing that is getting Joe killed over there is R.O.E.'s. Politics should not be played by theatre commanders, we need another Ike or even a Patton or god forbid a MacArthur. Anyone of those 3 would have told Der Kommisar to piss up his royal gold rope!

TRH, do you know what a Standard Mounted Infantry consists of, let alone a squad? Not trying to be nit picky, but her ya go, a Bradley dismount team will be 1 Team Ldr with an M4/M203, 1 saw Gunner or M240 Gunner, 2 Rifleman, 1 AntiArmor guy, either an AT4 or Javalin, and one of the rifleman is the designated marksman, and may be carrying a M28, a squad consists of 2 Fire teams, A Bradley platoon Consists of 2 squads. I forget the break down of a Light Infantry Platoon, they have pretty much the same breakdown for fire teams IIRC.

Of course. Isn't everybody?

Interesting that every time this argument comes up, its by someone that has not BTDT.

And every time I talk to troops that are well trained, the only comment I get is that they wished the only ammo they had was 77 bthp, but beyond that if your head isn't up your azz... the AR in 5.56 is all that is needed.

Of course all troops are not well trained and some don't want to be well trained either.

Me, id' be just as happy with the 5.56 as anything else. If I need more than that power and range wise, I'd rather have an M40 or larger versions...

I wish I'd have seen this thread before I talked to my best friend today, who is currently stationed in quite possibly the [bleep] in place of all Afghanistan, which would be Marjah. He is with a USMC MP unit, working with the Afghan National Police. To the best of my knowledge, pert near all the guys in his unit are issued M16A4's, though I think some of the officers may have M4's. He is thus far the only one in his unit to not be in a firefight (blessing or curse?) and he didn't mention anything about their rifles failing. He did mention though that he personally has spent the vast majority of his time there kicking down doors and raiding houses for Taliban fighters and/or weapons caches, so I think the M4 would most likely work fine in his situation, though I'm sure plenty others may have differing opinions.

Is the M4 the best choice for the battles encountered in Afghanistan? Probably not. A 7.62, 6.8, etc. rifle would most likely work better.

Do I think the DOD is going to do something about it and get our troops what they need to succeed in the terrain there? Hell no.

As Sean and others have mentioned, the Rules of Engagement are what have our military running below peak efficiency.

Bingo!!!!

It is not the caliber as has been argued by the uninformed, it is actually round used in that caliber. the 5.56 SOF MOD 77 gr SMK round has no problems with stopping power. That is also why the USMC just went to a more lethal bullet that gives better stopping power.

Now given that the 7.62 is also needed for the addtional range, it is a very smart move to use both and the use of the Designated Marksman in rifle squads is a move long needed. the M14 never has been or will be the rifle of choice for CQB due to the size and poor quick handling capabilities as compared to the M4.

BH (retired SF 24 yrs)

Still talkin' about schit you haven't a clue.

That "massed fire" dog, don't hunt.