Now back to the M-4 COP Kahler/OP Topside debate.
I spoke with Col. Doug Tamilio, Program Manager for Soldier Weapons and Rich Audette, the Soldier Weapons deputy PM on Oct. 15 about the findings in a draft report on the so called “Battle of Wanat” that called out the M4 and the M-249 for multiple failures at “high cyclic rates” during the battle.
We’ve had a bit of a back and forth on this issue here at DT: was it a fundamental flaw with the M4 or was it a problem of leadership? Both sides are well represented here, but I thought I’d give the Army its say in this debate.
Tamilio said he was surprised with the findings and that he did not agree with the author’s call for a systematic look at the M4’s ability to keep up at high rates of fire.
“To date, I have never had a Soldier or a commander or an NCO come up to me and say ‘these weapons are terrible’…Now I’m just talking about the M4. we don’t get anything, no feedback, and you know if there was a serious issue out there somewhere in eight years of fighting with all the battles that we’ve had we would have some serious data.”
Obviously Tamilio is defending his service’s rifle, but he has a point. We all know that there are less maintenance-intensive options out there for troops who do their work in dusty environments (which is just about everywhere except the arctic and the jungle). But this issue of high rates of fire hasn’t been brought up earlier.
The requirement for the M4 “mean time between stoppage” is 600 rounds. But Tamilio said today it demonstrates “3,600 rounds before stoppage…So that’s a world-class weapon.”
Tamilio said there are some “inconsistencies” between the draft history report and what he read and heard just after the battle. “We talked to the unit sergeant major a year ago and the report is not what I got first hand from him.”
“I truly believe that some of these Soldiers fired so many rounds so quickly that could that happen? Yes,” he added, explaining that he’d done tests with SOCOM where they fired 560 rounds in two minutes before the barrel warped.
“We knew this happened,” Tamilio said. “We interviewed the unit, talked to them and then went on about our business because we didn’t at that time think we had any issues with the M4 in that incident.”
— Christian
NICK,
Mr. Skinner and others don’t know WTF they are talking about! A properly maintained M16/M4 is as reliable as any other carbine/assault rifle. The ONLY difference is that some other designs are ‘more forgiving’ to improper care/maintenance. The M16/M4 does not require any more care/maintenance than ANY carbine/assault rifle SHOULD. Your weapon is your life, treat it as such. IF the M16/M4 was HALF as bad as Mr. Skinner and others make it out to be then we would be seeing MUCH greater losses due to it. But in reality the VAST majority of service men (& women) haven’t had issues with the M16/M4’s reliability.
The biggest failing of the M16/M4 is the same as ALL 5.56mm NATO carbines/assault rifles, the weak & unreliable 5.56mm NATO cartridge!
“Posted by: AMMO at October 21, 2009 01:32 PM:
Why the hell can’t it be both?“
Hear, hear. I might have mentioned this in another post, but I’ve spent 8 years doing risk and hazard assessment on military systems. In my experience, in a really massive frak-up, several things go wrong at the same time. In this case, as AMMO points out, I doubt it was EITHER an inherent problem with the M4 OR lack of maintenance OR the high sustained rate of fire, OR a lack of claymores OR bad fire discipline OR.….. What happened to “All of the Above”?
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark (presently Luxembourg)
Two further items:
“Posted by: Gary Rubel at October 21, 2009 11:59 AM:
Correction to the below post:
AK has a TILTING bolt locking system, NOT “rotating”. Sorry for the error.
Gary Rubel“
Actually, you got it right the first time around. The AK series uses a 2-lug rotating bolt head to lock.
“Posted by: Billy Pitts at October 21, 2009 09:50 AM:
.….and when he sat down with Alexai Kalishinikov, the designer of the AK family of weapons.…“
That would be MIKHAIL TIMOFEYEVICH Kalashnikov. Don’t know if he had a brother named Alexai.….
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark (presently Luxembourg)
Funny. He’s never heard a commander or soldier say anything bad? I am an infantry commander and i think it blows. I know many, many people that do as well. It was a good rifle, but it’s time is up. The argument of leadership is invalid. The point is that if there are options available that are not as maintenance intensive then why would we not use them? People get to fanatical about these things. Our weapons are tools. Nothing more. It is a way to close with and destroy the enemy. I just want the best available choice. The M4 is not it. Only a purist will tell you it is. Like many have said if it is an issue of cost buy the 416 uppers. I think we should just build ground up. Take lessons learned from the best rifles around the world. We are to beuracratic though. And we are lodged in ak and m4 camps etc. It is a tool. Try some objectivity on it.
Dear Nick;
I think that you have the right idea.
The US Army heroes, that can’t hit anything with their rifles, should be issued pistols in 44 Mag, 45ACP, 41 Mag, 357 Mag, 38 Special, 9mm, 32 Colt, 25 Colt, and 22 LR.
With this line up of close range personal defense weapons the US Army heroes will be able to miss their targets with a choice of two weapons ( rifle or pistol ) in the calibre that they choose, instead of missing with just the one weapon that they were issued.
This program would not increase the chances of hits, since that is now effectively at near zero probability, but it would add to the macho image of having an opportunity to take pictures of super studs carrying pistols, which can then be sent to girlfriends and mothers.
A soldier that is so highly trained that he is unable fire his rifle, will be even more effective if he is carrying a pistol.
Some people don’t know anything about weapons.
You are obviously not in that group.
Ahhh, another wonderful comment from Zandor! What would we do without your thoughtful insight and neutral views. I think you deserve a medal for youe bravery in combat and vast knowledge of the world at large…
What a know nothing, used douchebag. Please, get a life or jump to a site like LiveLeak, where they like pinheads like yourself.
This is the same argument that goes back to before the Civil war. The North could have armed many of their troops with the Henry and ended the war within a short period of time. That rifle when used by soldiers who bought them with their own money ravaged the southern troops they faced. No way a group of soldiers with single shot weapons could overcome the onslaught of the Henry rifle’s firepower. Any attacks by southern troops would have been put down within a few hours.
But did the DOD buy them.….…NO!!!!!!! Even Lincoln who was a shooter himself loved the weapon and could not get the Army to adapt it. There’s more to the story but I bring it up as an example. The same thing happened to the soldiers facing the superior Mauser during the Spanish war. We had the POS Krag. That fiasco made us adapt the Mauser based Springfield. The krag was only used for a few years, what a waste of money.
So the DOD has a history of this. before WWII they rejected the Thompson SMG, Did not use the quick change barrel for the BAR. Took forever to get the Garand into the hands of the soldiers. And it goes on and on. The weirdest one is the fact we chose the M-60 over the MAG then adapted the MAG 20 years later..well big DUH for the DOD!!!!!
The same argument is going on now as did then when we issued the POS M-16. Not to mention only a few years after we forced all of NATO into using the 7.62mmx51mm. It (the M-16# was not designed to be a MBR, just a light carbine for the Air Force.
The Russians got it right because they actually looked at the battle fields of WWII and we got it wrong because we listened to the bean counters, pencil pushers, pseudo scientists#like Robert McNamara#, desk commandos and self serving politicians/generals who care more about their wallets getting fat.
Look at the weapons we chose after WWII and look at what the Russians did. Their infantry squad and it’s weapons were way more effective in real combat. To this day we still have no answer for the combination of the RPG and AK-47, add the PKM, SVD and it’s a great combination for the infantry. AND we still can’t get it right.
The 5.56 round is antiquated, there are better ones now#the 6.8mm). The need for multiple weapons in multiple calibers is necessary for changing battlefields and operations. Desert, jungle, CQB, woodland, special operations, weapons for REMFs, drivers, MP’s and so on. One size does not fit all. It never has. The funniest one was the DOD trying to make boots that would fit both left and right feet as opposed to the not so funny M-16. It deficiencies has cost many lives, that is a fact history cannot ignore.
What happened at Wanat reads like an early report from Vietnam on how an outpost was overrun by the Vietcong. It was like deja vu all over again.
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
You wrote: “As usual with this problem for over 40 years ‘Dead men tell no tales’.“
and before that:
“This whole issue stinks of corruption at the highest level in the Pentagon, it’s time for Congress to get off their corrupt collective butts and look into this murder of American soldiers and Marines and do something about it. Where is Congressman John ‘I’m a Marine Colonel’ Murtha on this issue, on his way to a Colt ATM machine?“
But ( LITERALLY ) TECHNICALLY SPEAKING the U.S.A. even “won” the two wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq! Why aren’t you happy?
You U.S. infantrymen’s big problem now is that these two wars were NOT won by RIFLES .
Rifles don’t win wars, let alone World Wars. By the Second World War, rifles didn’t even win great battles anymore: I think that the last time that this happened was during the Two Boer Wars, and at very least during the conquest of the entire American continent.
The flabby, lobster-tasting, narcissistic Pentagon generals know that: That’s precisely the reason why they love to invest in heavy, cutting-edge, ultra-expensive hardware, especially aircraft: Because THIS actually wins wars, and even quickly & “cleanly” so!
That’s also the reason why they insist on hazing every single U.S. infantryman since World War Two with ridiculous toy guns, to every enemy soldier’s good laughter.
This rather scientific U.S. American notion of a “military victory” is so skewed that the U.S.A. are even willing to spend more money on having 116 bloaks (and soon broads) boring themselves to death in EACH SINGLE state-of-the-art, nuclear-powered Seawolf-class attack submarine, than on outfitting 1.090.000 Army soldiers plus another 203.000 Marines ( = a total of 1.293.000 infantrymen) with the VERY BEST assault rifle of any given period (“every epoch’s Infantry F-22 Raptor”), whatever the model, and whatever the price!
Proof of that:
~ 1.500.000 U.S. infantrymen x 2.000 $ per “the best rifle in the World” = only 3.000.000.000 $ (3 BILLION U.S. dollars).
In comparison to that:
“Seawolf was projected to be the most expensive (submarine) ever built, with a total program cost for 12 submarines estimated in 1991 at 33,6 BILLION in current dollars” (Caps added by me)
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn21_seawolf.html
(That’s 2,8 BILLION U.S. dollars per EACH INDIVIDUAL Seawolf-class submarine, NOT COUNTING the true cost overruns and posterior modernizations!)
And the heavy, strategic, nuclear B-1 bombers, currently flying as COIN planes in Afghanistan, also cost 70 million U.S. dollars EACH ,
1) = 27,3 BILLION U.S. dollars for the whole program ( = for 69 aircraft)
2) plus an ADDITIONAL 2,6 BILLION U.S. dollars in improvements
3) and still ANOTHER 3,7 BILLION U.S. dollars worth of items needed to operate the B-1 fleet,
4) all of which makes 33,6 BILLION U.S. dollars for only 69 planes, or 486.956.521 EFFECTIVE U.S. dollars PER EACH INDIVIDUAL plane (what happened to the original unit cost of only 70 million U.S. dollars? It went up 6,9 x times!),
5) and B-1’s have only a crew of 4 men!
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/26/nyregion/20-rise-in-b-1-bomber-cost-is-reported-in-gao-study.html
I think you get the point.
In the meantime, a brand-new AK-47 costs only 499 U.S. dollars, NOT EVEN the (theoretical) 2.000 U.S. dollars I mentioned above for some hypothetical “perfect rifle” :
http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/
Therefore:
~ 1.500.000 U.S. infantrymen x 499 $ per his Kalashnikov = 748.500.000 $ (748,5 million U.S. dollars, or ~ ONLY 30 % of O-N-E S-I-N-G-L-E Seawolf submarine!)
But, as you know, the wars that followed the Second World War were NOT World Wars… They were not even great wars anymore. They were dirty little skirmishes, fought in jungles, deserts and mountains, by lots of small groups consisting of men, women and sometimes even by children (because even A CHILD can hold and fire AK-47’s! Although the same can not necessarily be said of one of its historical Vietnam opponents, the M-14).
The U.S. generals who shop for arms completely neglect the policing and Counter-Resistance = the down-to-Earth reality of any Occupation.
That’s why the TRUE COST of the whole M-4 program could very well have been the following: Had the Talibans overrun that Wanat outpost – even briefly so – and triumphantly displayed 9 impaled or crucified U.S. soldiers all over the Web, then the TOTAL cost of the Afghanistan War =
229.759.242.899 U.S. dollars so far ( ~ 229 B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of U.S. dollars, at least this morning, when I last clicked on the running estimate below: )
http://www.costofwar.com/
(this year alone: 65 BILLION U.S. dollars = EVEN MORE money than for the Iraq War!)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/sign-of-the-times-afghanistan-war-costs-higher-than-iraq/
would have been spent completely in vain, because the U.S.A. would have FLED head over heels from Afghanistan, like in Mogadishu (especially now, since Obama became infallible with his Nobel Price for Peace), and all futuristic, heavy, U.S. American weapon systems would have had to leave Afghanistan equally defeated!
Maybe, just maybe, the one and only thing that effectively stood between that last, bleeding U.S. soldier’s survival in Wanat and (another) historic national military catastrophe was indeed… THE ONLY functioning M-4 he found in that entire compound! (Was he even aware of that, during those grueling 4 hours?)
The U.S.A. could certainly NOT have counted on the whole rest of its existing servicemen and arsenal to save its face, WORTH SEVERAL TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS , advertized as “the best in the World” and “standing by” IDLY throughout that massacre, starting with those four computerized howitzers and the low-level-capable B-1 bombers circling overhead…
Here’s an AR15 dust test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o
Good Morning Folks,
Although the AK-47 (CHICOM Type-56) are not the issue of this post, I want to comment anyway.
Again as one who has had extensive experience on BOTH sides of Kalashnikovs. It is clear that none of you know what you are talking about. The only area where the Kalashnikov, any variant, is superior to the M-16/M-4 is in it’s short piston gas operating system vs. the gas blow back of the Stoner AR system that is what the U.S’s, M-16 family uses.
Currently the rack carbine M-4’s are randomly checked for accuracy by the manufacture and have to meet a Mil Spec. of 3 MOA, mot as I’ve been told come in around 2.25 MOA. The full barrel M-16, rack rifles are expected to do a 2.5 MOA or better, most come in around 2 MOA. The M-16’s going to Marine sharps shooters, different barrel and bolt among other tweeks, that are built to use the Black Hill 77 gr. match round typically come in a less then an MOA.
As far as accuracy goes, the off the rack Kalashnikov in single shot well aimed mode has an accuracy of about 10 MOA for the first few rounds, when the weapon heats up the accuracy id degraded, in more understandable jargon it is problematic that that a minimally trained terrorist or member of an Asian military could hit a human target at 100 meter or more. That is the reason that most of the time the operator used the Kalashnikov on “rock n’ roll” and hopes for “spray a’ pray”.
I have on many time been on the receiving end of Kalashnikov fire and at over 50 meters any hit were accidental.
As a former combat soldier I strongly resent all those who blame the individual soldier or marine for the problems of the AR rifle/carbines. As long as this has been a problem if there ever was and I sincerely doubt there ever was a problem with maintenance this problem would have been deal with by the chain of command. In short if you have never been in a situation like that of the soldiers at Wanat, you are not entitled to an opinion, be you someone who has yet to served a day in the military or a “chicken” Colonel who lack the guts to challenge his superiors.
ALONS,
Byron Skinner
New made AK 102–103 shoots far beter that 10Moa and is quite close to M16 ‚the thing is the AK47 you find on the battle field are mostly 30+ years old M16 would be scrap metal by then and not even close to working condition.An there are conceptual problems with AK mostly the leaf sight with short sight line , many clone versions of AK with proper sights is not much worse than M4.Second is that AK47 with 7.62x39 round also has more of a kick than smaller 5.56 nato rounds so more muzzle clmb after first round.
But event tough afghan are spray&pray shooters ‚i seriously doubt that they are much worse than US forces 250.000+ rounds per dead insurgent ratio. Big diference is that they know they need and do get in close combat to do damage Us forces on other hand do their best to fight at long range
Dear ProjectThor:
You are funny.
Not smart, just funny.
Zandor
Again I agree with you Bryon, no we are not the same person people.
The Soviet doctrine concerning infantry combat is not predicated on aimed accurate fire from their soldiers. It’s a combined effort based on the RPG, firepower and their overwhelming numbers. They learned the lessons the Germans of WWII did.
Most contact will be close, no need for rifles that fire accurately to 200+ meters. But they know how important snipers and marksman are, even their track commanders were issued SVDs from what I understand. The Russians identify a need and make a weapon to fill it, yes as cheaply as possible but they make an attempt.……do we? Not until it’s usually after the fact, we are never proactive, our politicians and military react to situations.
Has anybody looked at the inventory of Russian weapons.…..they have a lot of overlapping systems and weapons to give their soldiers. Why don’t we? Why do the Marines always seem to come up with something and the Army never does unless it costs billions of dollars and doesn’t work all that well. Anybody remember something called the Sgt. York system?
The problems our military has can be fixed very easily, but because of the way we do things they never are. The Washington bureaucrats and military personnel who care more about their careers and not doing the job are what caused 9/11 and every mess this country has gotten itself into.
And you cannot fight a war were there are rules of engagement, that means your soldiers are policemen not combat soldiers.
Procurement should be done by people who have served on the front line. One wonders where they get procurement officers from. A business school?
But it’s important to assess everything. If necessary go tabula rasa on our small arms.
Good Evening Folks,
I agree with you Big Daddy the Russian doctrine calls for a wall of fire instead of aimed shots. As to the technical improvements in the Kalashnikov weapon systems, and yes they are many with the most dramatic being the Russian 5,45mm ctg. and the Chinese 5.8 mm ctg. But these weapons other then as a bin Laden prop are not in the field with the terrorists.
As for the range where most of the action takes place in Afghanistan, I would hope it’s at 200 meter or more.
The KIA reports from Afghanistan seem to support this, the majority of KIA’s, and also assuming WIA’s are coming from some form of road side devices. This would make sense for the Kalashnikov, and the RPG ‚which has a hard time engaging a stationary target at a ranges greater then 50 meters, are the main small arms of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The M-16 off the rack, when it’s functioning can easily with a typical U.S. Infantryman firing it can engage target out to 300 meters on iron sights.
Again I’m speaking from being their not watching the Military Channel or History Channel.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
As a combat arms leader deployed at the tactical level three times now, i have to say i am with big daddy and skinner. AK is a good weapon. It is durable and tough. It is not a precision weapon. Not sure if anyone on this post is read in but we train to precision level operations. Try to get the soldiers to surgical levels. That is a whole other challenge though. Good luck doing that with an AK. I have spent ample amounts of time training foreign forces with the AK. I wouldn’t trade M4 for AK. This coming from someone that wants to get rid of the M16 family of weapons. Have you ever done a reflexive fire drill with an AK? it’s absurd, the safety location in itself is prohibitive. Have you ever carried twelve mags of 7.62 while wearing full kit? Because many soldiers exceed basic load with 5.56 and carry up to 12 mags. Because in a gunfight you shoot a lot of bullets. That is never going to change. You need to be able to suppress. Gunfights can go on for a while too. I am really tired of the AK vs M16 debate. Our next weapon is not going to be an AK. I really think we need to go ground up. Reassess the calibers, the ergonomics, the materials, and maybe modularity of weapon (though that usually means, able to do many but good at none) I say this knowing that there will be grumbling and complaining about how junky (it is before my time, but i am tracking that is how the M16 was received when it first came out. Everyone hated it, now it won’t go away) it is and how the AK or M16 are better. Then, twenty years later this argument will be going on again between weapon x and weapon y.
Also, that mean time between stoppage statistic is false. I take good care of my weapon. My soldiers have too. The weapon sees a stoppage rate of about 1 in every 100, if not worse. Never mind if carbon starts to build up. Cheap mags, cheap parts…
Mr. Skinner,
With all due respect to your experiences, your last statement regarding the Kalashnikov system is flawed. A 60’s era Chicom Type 56 isn’t the same as an Arsenal 5.45mm AK-74 or better yet one of their variants chambered in 5.56 NATO. Both are significantly more accurate than the Communist rifle you were forced to face in battle. (I can promise you my own civilian SLR-106F and SLR-106UR SBR are easily 2-3x as accurate compared to the 7.62 AK-types I own from China and Romania. This even before the addition of red dot sighting systems to my Arsenals.) The same goes for Kalashnikov derivatives like the Sako Rk.62 and 65, the IMI Galil and the Vectopr/Denel R-4.
One thing you may be forgetting is that ammunition quality has a huge bearing on accuracy. The 7.62 rounds you faced in Vietnam are some of the least consistent cartridges manufactured in the 20th century. That same cartridge manufactured by Norma in Finland or by one of several U.S. manufacturers is another matter entirely. Again, from my own experiences over 20+ years as an AK shooter, simply using these cartridges as opposed to rounds manufactured in Russia, China or Yugoslavia typically halves group sizes.
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
You wrote: “…it is problematic that that a minimally trained terrorist or member of an Asian military could hit a human target at 100 meter or more. That is the reason that most of the time the operator used the Kalashnikov on ‘rock n’ roll’ and hopes for ‘spray a’ pray’. I have on many time been on the receiving end of Kalashnikov fire and at over 50 meters any hit were accidental.“
To sum up:
The Kalashnikov hits nothing, but fires reliably
The M-4 carbine hits “everything”, but fires unreliably.
Stalemate.
Next gun.
COL Tamilio posted some more information about the M4’s reliability and system upgrades.
You can find the information at:
http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2009/10/21/m4-reliability/
To the poster Byron Skinner :
You wrote: “I agree with you Big Daddy, the Russian doctrine calls for a wall of fire instead of aimed shots.“
Since you and the poster “Big Daddy” were both in the Vietnam, in the same year and even in the same Regiment, have the same opinions about arms procurement in the U.S.A., about the individual traits of individual weapons and about “Russian doctrine” etc., use the same language and even the same WORDS to express that (that’s what your various nick-names ran afoul of with me), and obviously agree totally with each other in public, I wonder: Do “you two” also have the same age, live in the same general area, drive the same cars, have the same number of kids and the same opinions about everything else too?
Have a nice weekend!!!
I never said I was in Vietnam…LMAO. I was station in Fulda Germany with the 1/11 ACR. I was a 19 Delta and I HATED the army. I did more police call and cleaning up then training as a scout. But that’s another story.
There is always at least one of those types on every forum, blog, message board or whatever. They have something wrong with them and like a traveler carrying his personal stuff they carry their personal issues. So wherever they go so comes their issues. They can never get information right due to their issues. They come up with some laughable observations and cannot be taken seriously. Their neurotic behavior becomes obvious and disruptive which is their twisted objective.
So basically that free falling bomb landing on someone’s head.
Another poster also twisted what I said and came to some off the wall conclusions about what I meant. Why must certain people do that? It amazes me when people read something then take it out of context and build a complete falsehood about what that statement was supposed to mean. Kind of like what politicians do.……
The way a military trained mind is supposed to work is to report back exactly what you were told, heard and/or saw. To the posters who are unable to do that I question whether they were in the military or lost those basic abilities for some reason. Basic as in that was the first thing you learned in basic training, repeating general orders. That taught you to do as I described.
But as usual I digress because of the posters here who rather than state facts and their own experiences they attack other posters who don’t agree with them.
Good Morning FFB.
Since you were never in the military you haven’t a clue of what it is. Yes you learn a new jargon and much of it is unique to what ever branch or unit you served in. Big Daddy and I served in the same unit most likely a decade or more apart on different continents doing different missions against different but similar enemies.
In my case I fought a military throughly steeped in Soviet Doctrine and NVA commanders pretty much fought by the book. Big Daddy faced the Soviets who were trained and would have fought from the same books.
And yes Big Daddy I also HATE the Army.
To those who want to compare your “civilian” weapons be they Kalashnikovs or M-16’s it’s not the same as the rack rifles that a soldier would have. First off the soldiers weapon most likely has fired thousands, many on three round burst as fast as she/he can pull the trigger of rounds of ammo, the rifling is worn, the barrel form being heated and cooled is warped, the bolt in the receiver is sloppy from wear etc.
The civilian versions of these weapons are hand selected and made for a competitive market place and I would suspect that a Soldier or Marine will run more round through trough his/her weapon in a week of combat then you will in several life time of use.
That said I will gladly give credit to the women/men who make up the serious civilian AR marksmanship community for many of the changes that have been made available to the military weapons designers including the adaptation of the short stroke gas piston operating system. The engineers and designers at Colt and with in the Pentagon had over 30 years to figure this out couldn’t, the market place did it in less the two after the ban was lifted.
The military ball ammo like the M-855 62 gr. 5.56x45mm service round for the M-4/M-16A4 is not even legally available to you as is the standard Soviet/Russian Model 43 122.9 gr 7.62x39mm round for the Kalashnikov. Both have steel core are are considered AP.
The relevance of comparing of the two weapon genres might be interesting to other owners but really have nothing to do with this discussion.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Mr. Skinner,
I’m sorry but you continue to make incorrect statements and make ad hominem attacks against those with whom you disagree.
“To those who want to compare your “civilian” weapons be they Kalashnikovs or M-16’s it’s not the same as the rack rifles that a soldier would have. First off the soldiers weapon most likely has fired thousands, many on three round burst as fast as she/he can pull the trigger of rounds of ammo, the rifling is worn, the barrel form being heated and cooled is warped, the bolt in the receiver is sloppy from wear etc.“
That’s not necessarily true. A couple of my older Kalashnikovs have several thousands of rounds through them, courtesy of the plentiful and cheap Chicom ammo available in the 1980’s. The particular rifles in question shoot no worse than they did during the Reagan era. By that same token most of the M4’s and many of the M16’s in combat zones today are new production. They are far from worn out.
“The civilian versions of these weapons are hand selected and made for a competitive market place and I would suspect that a Soldier or Marine will run more round through trough his/her weapon in a week of combat then you will in several life time of use.“
That’s quite an assumption, don’t you think? It’s becoming quite evident that much of your arguments are based on similar assumptions. Regardless, I only noted my own experiences with civilian-legal AK derivatives to illustrate the point that the overall design is not the inaccurate platform many believe it to be. Highly accurate AK’s are used by Polish troops fighting side-by-side with us in the GWOT. The Israeli Galil, Finnish Rk’s and S. African R-4 are examples of what a Kalashnikov-based selective fire arm is capable of when built to Western tolerances and fed quality ammunition. None are “cherry-picked” civilian arms.
BTW, my own personal experience is far from limited to civilian arms. I proudly served as a U.S. Army Combat Engineer for six years, first with A/299 Eng. Bn. and ending my service as a member of the 420 Eng. Co., USAR.
“The military ball ammo like the M-855 62 gr. 5.56x45mm service round for the M-4/M-16A4 is not even legally available to you as is the standard Soviet/Russian Model 43 122.9 gr 7.62x39mm round for the Kalashnikov. Both have steel core are are considered AP.“
Pardon my directness but that blatantly wrong statement alone calls into question any authority you may have with respect to this discussion in general. M855 is not only very legal but widely sold throughout the United States. It is often the most common 5.56 ammo one can find. I have fired several thousand through my AR’s (yes, I do own those as well) and 5.56mm AK’s.
“The relevance of comparing of the two weapon genres might be interesting to other owners but really have nothing to do with this discussion.“
As stated, that’s your opinion but it’s becoming more obvious with each post that your personal knowledge of the subject leaves a great deal to be desired. I respectfully attempted to respond to glaring errors you made in an earlier post. You in turn resort to thumbing your nose at someone with almost certainly more trigger time with both AR and AK-based firearms and clearly more overall firearms knowledge. Perhaps it was an effort to maintain your lofty post as DT’s resident expert of all things. That’s fine. The people who have experience at both ends of these weapons can see you for what you really are.
Off coure 250k rounds per insurgent in for whole Us forces usage,but real combat use tally is still only someting like 2210 rounds per insurgent fird by rifleman in combat and only 1.3rounds per insurgent for snipers .
Of course that is also result of the simple fact that only small % of troops realy fire too kill ‚in ww2 this percentage was somewhere around 1,5% of all troops now this closer to 4% .And interesting fact is that from these 1,5% about half were natural born leaders and the rest were psyhicaly dusturbed type killers which actualy enjoy doing it and guess which part increased in todays wars,hint its not natural born leaders.
Mat the vast majority of that ammunition fired is for suppressive fire work. Everything from helicopter mounted miniguns firing at 6000 rounds per minute, coax machine guns on our tanks, M249s pinning down the enemy in a building, and M4s and M16s firing adds up.
And what are you raving about “natural born killers/leaders” for? You either have a good soldier or a lousy one. It doesn’t matter how much they care about the terrorist SOB they just shot up.
Yes sure how may hot infils/exfils do you see in afganisatan,and when in comes to combat Us forces are almost as much spray & pray as any other.That is why you dont give them full auto rifles.
I am looking for a place to buy some shoes.
Can anyone here help me out?
It’s true Bryon you can get M855 ammo or just about anything else you want including HE warheads depending on what state and if you have the paper work and want to spend the money.
There are a few types of rounds that will not be sold to civilians.
All the weapons we are talking about and their ammo are antiquated and there are better weapons out there right now. There are also coatings that require no lube that should be used on our weapons but it’s all about giving the infantry cheap stuff. And spending the money on the F-35 which will never fly and will hopefully be canceled. The guy in the trenches always gets the shaft except the day they made one good decision and adopted the M-1 Garand.
Good Morning Big Daddy,
You are correct you can purchase M-855 ammo, most of the M-855 that is on the street now is DoD rejected product from the Lake City plant in Mo. before it was closed down for modernization, the equipment was just worn out. That said if you look at US Code and the section dealing ammunition the M-855 is clearly an AP round and it’s sale is illegal.
Most this ammo was unloaded to wholesalers, assumed for foreign sales? What ever. It can be found for sale at some gun shows and by retailers who operate in an environment where the enforcement of fire arm laws is not a high priority for either the Feds or local law enforcement.
The question of Federal legality is rather mute, that is of course until the ATFE wants to make a bust. I can by “medical marijuana” at at least four store from location from walking distance from the house, and have been able to for well over a year.
Marijuana is still an illegal substance under Federal Law but the retail sales and small amount consumption has been a very low priority for the DEA . The last local bust was a single retail outlet on 07, it was done as a photo opt for the media and so far nobody has as of yet been charged with anything.
One thing I might add for other posters here, don’t brag about you own weapons collection or what kind of ammo you have. The Feds watch this site and others where the topic often comes up. I know of at least one example of where someone one was bragging about having M-855 ammo and the assault rifles he owned. The lived in Wyoming a state that has rather loosy-gossy fire arms laws and very lax enforcement. He got a visit from ATFE, they were interested in one of his rifles he talked about in a post, a Bushmaster with a short barrel, 10″. The weapon started out as a 16″ but was “modified” and thus very illegal.
When asked for the registration or other paper work, like a receipt or a bill of sale he admitted he bought it for cash from a private party. The serial number was checked, bad news, the Bushmaster was stolen from a gun shop in another state.
The result is, the guy did a plea bargain on a Federal Weapons charge a Federal Felony, he go a suspended sentence but because he is convected felon his days of fire arm collecting are over, the told him to try stamp collecting.
Moral of the story, be very careful of what you say on the web.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
That story rings a bell, how true it is I don’t know. There is so much BS on the internet and so many nut jobs I really find myself not even reading nearly as much about my interests as I have in the past.
This site as well as so many others are constantly polluted by left wing, right wing and just plain old nut cases. I don’t even like to post anywhere anymore. Sports sites are even worse than military ones.
Do ya think the armchair commandos are bad here…ha.….I play music, go to a guitar site and deal with those wannabee guitar gods…LMAO…they are much worse.
To the poster “Mat” :
You wrote: “Off course 250k rounds per insurgent in for whole Us forces usage,but real combat use tally is still only something like 2210 rounds per insurgent fired by rifleman in combat and only 1.3rounds per insurgent for snipers.“
NO NEED to get so modest after you were so terribly right about something! Alas, you’re even MORE RIGHT than you possibly imagine, I just wasn’t immediately aware of it: In modern wars, only a SMALL FRACTION of all soldiers gets killed by other soldiers! The biggest killer on the battlefield is still the Artillery, followed by the Airforce. Meaning: If MOST of the Iraqi + Afghan Insurgents get killed by the U.S. Artillery and during air raids = N-O-T BY U.S. RIFLEFIRE , then the SAME AMOUNT of rifle ammunition is needed to kill only a SMALLER number of remaining Insurgents, ergo every Insurgent needs to be killed BY EVEN MORE rounds than you initially stated!
In mathematics it’s defined like this: “The smaller the divisor, the bigger the quotient” :
DIVIDEND / DIVISOR = QUOTIENT
The DIVIDEND is the total amount of rounds spent,
the DIVISOR is the number of Insurgents killed by U.S. riflefire (which shrinks of course, after you discount all those killed by other, heavier ordnance),
the QUOTIENT is the resulting number of rounds needed to kill every individual Insurgent.
Let’s imagine that the number of Insurgents killed by U.S. infantrymen is only HALF of all the dead Insurgents.
Then it takes not 250.000 rounds to kill every single Insurgent, but TWICE AS MANY = 500.000 rounds!
And if (presuming that…) only one quarter of all dead Insurgents are killed by U.S. riflefire, then the total number of rounds needed to kill each single Insurgent is a mind-numbing QUADRUPLE of 250.000 rounds = A WHOLE MILLION !
If every STANAG magazine carries 30 rounds, that’s 33.333 magazines to kill a single bulbul (who are the REAL “ragheads” here?) !!!
But since some STANAG magazines carry only 20 rounds, that could make as much as 50.000 magazines to successfully drop each bulbul! (I must be the BEST SNIPER of the whole goddamned U.S.A. …)
I wonder: Do U.S. infantrymen allow their targets to go home, have lunch, take a dump, go to work, attack outposts, go shopping, enjoy the night-life and even sleep sound between hits, all the while firing non-stop at them?
I’m also beginning to contemplate the prospect of Europe being invaded by the U.S.A. one day with increasing optimism!
Mat is pulling old Vietnam era numbers down to a T. I don’t know if they’ve changed in modern conflict or not.
“CONSTRUCTION — The bullet must either have a core made ENTIRELY out
of one or more of the listed metals, or be a full jacketed type bullet
with a jacket comprising more that 25% of its weight. Thus SS109/M855
.223 (5.56mm) bullets would not be covered, because their core is only partly
steel, and partly lead. Lead is not a listed metal, and bullets with
cores made partly out of lead are OK. ATF has expressly ruled that
SS109/M855 bullets are not covered.
”
Numbers are not Vietnam based they are current US small arms ammo usage stats. Yes and calculating insurgent casualties by air launched munitions or artillery the numbers go up and the numbers are worse than Vietnam as the war is not so ‘target rich’.But as said actual stats per soldier in combat is cca 2210 rounds per ‘bad guy’.
Skinner got owned. ALLOFFS!
“CONSTRUCTION — The bullet must either have a core made ENTIRELY out
of one or more of the listed metals, or be a full jacketed type bullet
with a jacket comprising more that 25% of its weight. Thus SS109/M855
.223 (5.56mm) bullets would not be covered, because their core is only partly
steel, and partly lead. Lead is not a listed metal, and bullets with
cores made partly out of lead are OK. ATF has expressly ruled that
SS109/M855 bullets are not covered.
”