So that paper we linked to and wrote about yesterday, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, is generating some major heat, particularly down at Special Operations Command (SOCOM), we learned today.
The paper, written by a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Leavenworth, that’s the one for the Army’s best and brightest officers, says the infantry’s standard small arm (the M-4 rifle) cannot engage the enemy in Afghanistan where most firefights occur past 300 meters. This is due to an ineffective round, the 5.56mm, and inadequate training. The paper was written last fall, but has really been making the rounds just in the past few weeks.
I brought the paper up this morning during a roundtable discussion at the Pentagon with the folks from Program Executive Office – Soldier. Col. Doug Tamilio, program manager for Soldier weapons lethality (this guys weapons knowledge is unreal), said it was a very good paper, although he thought some of the conclusions were a bit out of context. Tamilio has made it mandatory reading for his shop, particularly after spending a few days down at SOCOM and hearing the splash the paper has made there.
“He’s right, the fight in Afghanistan is longer… But you’ve got to go back to where soldiers are today. Can a soldier engage beyond 300 meters accurately? The answer is probably not.” Most soldiers coming out of basic training can’t shoot expertly, except for the few sharpshooters. “It takes a while to become an expert at shooting at ranges beyond 300 meters,” he said.
But PEO Soldier is focused on equipping, not so much training. So what is PEO Soldier giving the infantry to take back that half kilometer?
To begin with the 7.62mm M-14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR), a modern version of the venerable M14 rifle, Tamilio said. Long a favorite of Navy SEALS and other special ops units, the Army is now distributing two EBR 14s per rifle squad to get more range and lethality. Soldier feedback so far has been very positive, he said. A team is in Afghanistan right now collecting feedback from soldiers and putting together a report to brief to Congress.
The other weapon that’s gained favor with foot soldiers in Afghanistan is the Mk. 48 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), a 7.62mm version of the SAW that is used by SOCOM but the Army is now buying. Soldiers are leaving behind the 5.56mm SAW and taking the 7.62mm version with them instead, he said.
“The fight in Afghanistan has probably shown us that 7.62mm, in certain aspects, is needed and required,” he said. Soldier preference for the EBR 14 and the Mk. 48 SAW backs that up.
But moving the entire rifle squad to the heavier round is a bigger question for the Army infantry school at Fort Benning to wrestle with, Tamilio said. Until now, the policy has been that in a 9-man squad the Army would keep the 5.56mm round across the squad. “We’re starting to think of a mix within our squads.”
The question then becomes do you need a 7.62mm in every type of fight? Is it the right round for close quarters urban firefights? These are the questions the Army is grappling with, Tamilio said. He wasn’t ready to say the Army should move to the bigger round across the board.
PEO Soldier is trying to provide a “modular” capability to the rifle squad, where they can mix and match weapons for different missions, said Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller. That’s a concept borrowed from special operations, where they have a big closet full of weapons, tailored to specific missions, that they can choose from. The paper’s author referred to this preferred approach as the “arms room concept.”
The focus right now is on the three Afghanistan surge brigades, he said. “We’ve gone to them and said here is some additional capability we have in our closet that hasn’t been fielded… we can’t field it to the whole Army. But I can give you an increased capability so you have a little more kit in your kit bag to adapt to that environment.”
{ 111 comments… read them below or add one }
Heh. "Bring back the M-, er…. EBR 14!!!"
The question I have is what is the difference between the Mk.48 and the M240? We already have a 7.62mm gun in the M240, so why would we need to get the Mk.48s? Is there a big difference between these 2 weapons that benefits the Mk.48 over the M240?
I was hoping for the M-14 to be given to our forces in A-Stan. Lets face it, the weapon works well. It can give them the additional range they need and the heavier punch to go along with it.
If they do decide to go 7.62mm across the board, I am betting the army will just ask for a new upper receiver for the M-4s and M-16s so they can keep utilizing the same weapon longer.
You can't fit a 7.62x51mm NATO round in the magazine well of an M4 or M16 that's designed for a bullet that's considerably shorter in its overall dimensions.
Correct! The weapon has been around for a long time. It's called the A-10. A 7.62 that was developed before the M-16. Comes just like the 16 with a lot of different configs.
The Mk 48 is lighter and more easier to tote in the mountains of Astan. While you cant put a 7.62 upper on an m4 you can put a 6.8 or 6.5 grendel which are both better at dishing hurt at increased ranges. From experience the 6.5 is a very flat shooting bullet well past 500m
Also the SOCOM .458 upper fits and works with standard mags. But, it is for shorter distance.
6.8 spc does not fit in the standard platform, has to be an ar10/dpms 308lr/ect. platform for it. rounds for the standard m16(with correct parts) are 22lr, 223/556, 223ai, 9mm, .45 acp,6.5 grendel, 458 socom, and i think .50 beowolf? not 100% on the .50 it may be ar10 platform as well
The 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel were designed around the basis of working in the current dimensions of the 5.56X45 cartridge overall length, and it most certainly will fit into an M4 lower (it uses modified 5.56 mags).
Wasnt it Carlos Hathcock who wanted the "golf bag" approach, to be able to draw the right tool for the job?
best Idea yet, remember the squads of WW2? M-3 grease guns/ thompsons, M-1 rifles, BAR and the scattered Carbines with a pistol thrown in for CQB.
It was a logistics nightmare but Hell, that's all Astan is anyway.
ed!
The big difference between the M240 and the Mk. 48 is weight, M240 is much heavier.
Greg
The Mk. 48 is designed to have roughly the same effectiveness as the M240 and as you say is much lighter as well. This is accomplished by the using alot more aluminum in major components. This means the Mk48 require more maintenance than the heavier M240; the life before refurbishment rate is 1/3.
The 6.5mm, 6.8mm and that crazy Remington .30 cal round will fit in an M16 lower. But 7.62x51mm will not.
You might not be able to adapt the 7.62 upper to a M4 lower, but you can adapt a 6.8 upper to a M4 lower, just add a new magazine, oh and a new optics reticle.
I’d be curious to know, from those who know, if the 6.8 round is effective at the 300m – 900m engagement ranges?
6.8 is less effective than the 6.5 Grendal round at those ranges. But it packs a much bigger punch at lesser ranges.
No, but the 6.5 Grendel should be
So how come the marines have no problem shooting and hitting target during boot camp at 500 yards with iron sights
perfect conditions… well fed, well rested, spotless weapon, compared to dirty, tired, hungry and having people shooting at you.
you tell me…
Perfect conditions like being freezing cold, tired, being rained on and being yelled at while trying to shoot? ha, ya I get your point, but with the RCO (3X zoom) you still should be able to hit stuff without too much trouble at 500m.
Where did U go to basic?? When I went thru BCT at Ft Knox in 1975 It was wintertime. Cold, Dirty and Hungry sometimes.
Hell yeah! I musta been a fluke, qualifying expert 14 times with the black micro-caliber gun and iron sights at distances including 500 yds in the desert, in the jungle, in the swamps…the problem is the Army's marksmanship program, not the rifle.
OORAH
Damn straight……finally somebody gets it right.
See above!
The Marines are required to become expert Marksmen before leaving Boot Camp, and the Army has no such requirement!
Though, according to another DT article, it seems that they're re-thinking that idea, just a bit…
The issue is LETHALITY not accuracy, although accuracy at ranges beyond 300m suffers because of the light weight of the 5.56mm round.
We're talking TERMINAL ballistics. That is what a round does to the target when it's hit, not it's ability to hit the target.
i dont mean to start an argument or anything but the fact of the matter is there isnt enough power in the 223/556 round to actually kill someone at 500 meters. No matter how well you can hit when a 55 grain bullet fired at 3400 fps(thats being a little generous its actually closer to 3300-3350 from nato rounds), it looses so much velocity that it only impacts about 200 ft lbs of force at 500 meters, compared to 1300 from the muzzle. Thats why alot of the dmr's who use the mk12 style m16's now run with 77 grain bullets instead(mk 262 rounds iirc?), these hit with about 500 ft lbs at 500 meters. thats abot 3 inchs of penetration at range vs 7.5-8(oddly enough just enough for a one hit kill from shot w/o body armor)
Having one gun for everything is an accountant's dream and a soldier's nightmare. For open country, they should be shooting 7.62. Keep the 5.56 for forested and urban environments where the targets are within the bullet's lethal envelope.
An AR-10 variant would probably be ideal since it has the same basic operating principles as the M4 and so it would be easier to train the infantry on how to use and care for it.
Speaking as one who often thinks the military pays too little attention to cost, I still have to agree with you here. Small arms are incredibly cheap compared to almost anything else the U.S. military buys, can be purchased on contracts that are not "costs plus" and use existing technology, and are fine to have sitting in warehouses for sustained periods until the conflict de jour requires them. The cost of a single F-22 or F-35 or littoral combat ships can buy a very large cache of small arms.
This is procurement for a war actively being fought right now about which we are much better able to know what we need, not a war that we may or may not fight fifteen years in the future. Other procurement priorities need to give way to whatever the soldiers on the ground need or even simply prefer unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.
Indeed the M-14's don't even need to be procured (the original version ,that is) unless they have been destroyed there should be warehouses full sitting in cosmoline ready to use.
5.56 may have worked well at close quarters in Vietnam, but ever since the M16A2 barrel twist and slug weight make the round's velocity so high that it just goes right through targets closer than 100 meters; it's too fast and stable for its famous tumbling effect to do the damage it used to.
ive actually not seen any proof of this, i have done testing myself in ballistic gel and the faster the better, what actually causes the tumbling is when the round hits the target the front slows way down but the rear of the bullet is still at speed and trys to pass the front. This causes the tumbling, and eventually fragmentation(yes the fmj rounds fragment very very well) also the faster the round is moving the more temporary tissue distortion is caused which later becomes permanent when the bullet fragments. granted the bullets being used are far too light, i wont go back to anything lighter then my 69 or 77 grain matchkings anymore depending on barrel twist(only 77's in my personal rifle now that i have the new barrel)
My M16-A1 with only iron sites made super easy work of 400 meter targets. During basic training and throuh out my entire time in the military I never missed a shot at 400 meters. Adding 100 more would not be that hard. I thought everyone now days was issued a scope. There is no reason to miss anything when you have a scope.
They're not using M16s, they're using M4s. They have shorter barrels with lower muzzle velocities. I read the entire paper (which I highly recommend) and it's not so much that shooters can't hit targets at that range, but that A) the 5.56mm SS109 round is both inaccurate and lacks punch at 500m (the older rounds had higher velocities which caused fragmentation at longer ranges from 20" barrels) and B) that the training is ineffective. Marines are trained to hit targets at 500 meters, but they're trained to do so in unrealistic circumstances. They don't use realistic targets, realistic situations, wear shooting jackets (ie, not body armor and web gear), etc.
Bull Shit. We're taught to shoot at MCT with full flack and kevlar. We use Boot to get down basic marksmanship and then at MCT we train with flaks and kevlar. You can not graduate MCT unless you achieve a certain performance with your rifle. (And yes, we train to shoot infinitely better than the other services. Any basically trained Marine will out shoot and out fight any basically trained member of any other service.)
not really but whatever they tell you to keep that jar head spirit up
Why on Earth would the military purposefully cripple ranged performance? *shakes head* Thanks everyone for your input. I learned a few things reading what each of you posted. True it is vastly different with chaos around you. Since I never saw combat I am only able to imagine. At what point do you grow beyond that (dealing with combat chaos) so you can get the job done and then help your friend? I don't know if there is an answer to that, but I thought I'd ask. And to each of you who served or are still serving you have my most sincere thanks and utmost respect. Whoo-ah! Win and Heal.
Did you make those shots with 120's coming in around you? RPG's hitting your emplacement? Your buddy screaming his guts out because he just took a around in the belly? Range time = Apples. Real Combat = Oranges
You were also using a 16 which has a longer barrel than the M-4.
If he was using an M16A1 he was using a 20" barrel. 16" is the typical barrel length on civilian AR-15 carbines. 18" for mid length, 20" for rifle length.
I say buy and distribute the SOCOM SCAR-L/H to replace the venerable M-4/M-16 – the SCAR can be changed to either the Light 5.56mm or the Heavy 7.62mm version, without needing much tooling in the field. Weapon familiarity and (personal) customization is big plus for the combat-proven FN SCAR.
Same goes for the squad/platoon SAWs and M-240 GPMGs; replace both with either the M249 5.56mm or Mk.48 7.62mm (essentially the same SAW chassis) and continue to use both calibers for the "golf bag" approach.
I agree. I'd rather them just totally switch to the SCAR-H, though. We need to get back to 7.62x51mm…
the SCAR-L and SCAR-H are two different rifles. the part that is "convertable" is the barrel length.
Right. Now the Remington ACR is another story. It changes calibers without tools! Let's not jump on the FN trolley just yet.
It Is time that the Army and Marines make a change. There is no need for a 5.56 round. Given it only works out to 300m doesn't make it ideal for close combat either. The round is so small and travels so fast it just goes right through your target. It has no knock down power. Look at the accounts of Ranger/Delta In Somalia. This round has terrible ballistics when trying to shoot through a car window to stop a would be car bomber.
The services need to quit babying the M16/M4 at our (service members fate). I personally love my SOCOM II (a shortened down M14). The 7.62 offers great knock down power at both long and short distances. Yes the ammo weighs more and you can only fit 20 in a mag, but at the same time one single round is double if not triple (round dependent) the stopping power of the SS109. Given this troops wouldn't need 5+ shots to take down one person.
Yes, Marines are trained to engage targets at 500m (in an ideal environment). But I can use my Glock and hit targets at 150-200m. It doesn't mean it will actually stop/kill them. Its like shooting some one with a BB gun it will sting and just piss them off even more.
I think the SCAR is a great design. So is the ACR only in a different caliber which should be released this year hopefully.
if you can hit targets at 200m with a glock then im surprised you don't know about the myth of stopping power
If you cared to read my post thoroughly:
But I can use my Glock and hit targets at 150-200m. It doesn't mean it will actually stop/kill them.
Why can't the army temporarily just replace their shorter M4 rifles for the Marine Corps M16A4 rifle which has a longer barrel? Then we can argue about bigger rounds(with corresponding barrels) for the rifles. The M4 is great for urban environments or for deploying from M2 Bradleys & Stryker vehicles,but for light infantry,it is useless.
The 5.56mm has poor performance beyond 300m whether it's coming out of a 20" barrel or a 14.5" one. It's the difference between "bad" and "worse".
the m16a4 is not a "marine rifle" the army has more in the inventory than the corps does.
Great points by all,
Very true about Marine rifle training, however once you teach a Marine that HE CAN do 500 then its up to his CPL/SGT to remind him that the same rules still apply in the field. iF THAT nco cant cuss out his people for spary/pray imitation and remind them that they can do he is in the wrong biz.
I'll take a 7.62 any day in fact I do.
First off, excellent reporting! This is top grade from the horse's mouth, non-press release, not previously publicly available information about one of the more important defense tech issues facing the nation. Frank statements like these are exceedingly hard to obtain from senior DOD officials. Using a student paper like this that is being widely discussed as a way to draw out insight about the state of the larger debate in the Pentagon is also a method that only a seriously knowledgable reporter can manage.
Second, the fact that in Afghanistan "most firefights occur past 300 meters" is notable and not something I've seen reported anywhere else. In most past conflicts, most firefights occur at under 100 meters. Afghan war exceptionalism provides the brass with face and makes the case that long range is important in Afghanistan credible.
Third, the "arms room" concept has a lot to recommend it. It provides quality grass roots input that informs what is generally a Soviet style command economy.
Ok let me get this straight, US are fighting AK47 equiped highly mobile(so no heavy weaponry) insurgents half ot them are iliterate ,and much of the US forces are equiped with some sort of optics,they aso have better equiped DMR and plenty off heavy M2 machineguns and are supposedly well trained profesionals .This shit doesn't hold water ,the guy is bullshitng around with examples how WW1 & WW2 rifleman could shot at over 300m with no optics ,yes both the round and rifle were capable of longe range shooting but withut optics and good marksmanship they still couldnt hit anything over 300m.And dont forget that wight of ammo is a great problem for bigger calibre weapons Another piece of crap is th claim of Taliban ochestarting long range firefights, as far as i see it the US forces that dictate long range engagment not the Taliban ,they would prefer to close in to reduce air support and heavy weapons fire,while also increasing their AK effectivnes. This article more or less tailors the facts to support authors thesis.
The Taliban use Aks to instigate the fight. Then they use mortars and RPGs to strike at troops and big targets like Humvees and Tanks. Its not so much trying to beat the US in a head on firefight. Its more about drawing US soldiers out of their compund and getting them back on the IED laced road.
AK and RPG are very short range weapons,Mortarts are very inacurate and also hard to transport ,so it comes down to a fact that the bad guys are geting good at fighting superior armies and its not the equipmet that will solve it ,its the training ,tactics and leadership that is lacking ,but those things cant be solved by throwing money at the problem.That is teh reason we are all in this mess now,afghanis are only as corrupt and ineficient as we make them,as long as we are paying bribes to taliban to let the suppyl trucks pass securely and proping up Karzais ragime with wads of cash ,leting all teh drug barons an werlords do their dirty work just as loong as they dont make any trouble.That only ailenates peoples support for teh fight against taliban,as they all know that once Us moves out taliban will be back and Karzais band will live happily ever after with pockets full of us taxpayers cash in ther new Dubai homes
Mat, with regards to the illiterate average Taliban. You forgot a very specific point. Many of these insurgents have grown up fighting with the AK. In a country where warfare has been the norm since the late 70s, it should be expected they would know how to fire their weapons. Keep in mind also this is the same country that decimated an entire british force back in the 1800s. This is their back yard and they have been fighting for over a generation now. A person doesn't need the ability to read to be able to learn how to fire a weapon expertly.
I'd disagree on your statement that mortars are hard to transport, it all depends on the size of mortar you're transporting. Remember, a mortar breaks down (not including ammo) into 2 – 3 fairly easily transportable pieces: the tube, the bipod (depending on the mortar), and the baseplate, and the ammo gets spread out. Although I was never a grunt I do know that in the Corps the grunts hump not only mortars (up to 81mm I think) but M2s as well; if we can do it while wearing all kinds of extra gear then so can an unencumbered Afghan insurgent. Plus something like a mortar doesn't need to be all that accurate, it just needs to be accurate enough to where you can lob a round onto a target within its blast radius, sort of like the old saying about horseshoes and hand grenades would apply to mortars as well. Add to that that the insurgents don't exactly have to worry about hitting civilians either, they just blame any civilian casualties they inflict on us.
The taliban also use Dragunov and PKM machine guns, both of which use the 7.62x54mmR, which in terms of ballistics is comparable to the 30.06. At 1000 metres this round still has over 1,000 ft-lbs of energy and remains very lethal.
Not only that, but they will also use tactics to match, such as splitting up sniper, MG & RPG teams, putting them into good defensible positions on the high ground and using them to pound the enemy from a distance whilst the AK & RPD using infantry either to defend, add more suppressing fire, or assault the enemy (I.E. what they did at Wanat)
So yeah, they have us outranged and they have the tactics & mobility ideally suited to the terrain, which they've been working on for the last 20 years.
Great discussion so far. I know this is simplistic, but it seems a better solution than the 'golf bag' approach or having two different calibres in each squad. Instead of 5.56mm vs 7.62mm, why not just switch to the 6.5mm (Grendel) round that everybody raves about? Better ballistics than 7.62, flatter trajectory, great penetration etc etc. You get a great long range round that can be used by infantry, sharp shooters, machine gunners and snipers. There, problem solved!
How about the logistics peopl just do their jobs and quit whining about the complexities of having (Oh my goodness) one more different type of round. IF we do decide to use the SCAR then perhaps soldiers could configure their weapon to the caliber needed for whatever misson they're going on.
For the most part this can be done with the current rifle, mayby not 7.62 but man other calibers, and if they went to the ar10 instead I think it would open a much larger selection, with a little money I don't see why they couldnt use conversion uppers if they wanted to shoot say 556 out of ar10s. Afterall you can convert a ar15 into 22 lr in just a couple mins. And you can use down to a 7.5 inch? Barrel on the ar/m platform(I have no use for a sbr so I don't no the short barrels) it takes 30 seconds tops to switch uppers, heck I can change my barrel in 5 mins taking my time using a freefloat barrelnut
I would like to see mayby 7mm, not sure on cartridge size as I don't have one yet but double/triple the weight of most 223/556 rounds while traveling 800 fps faster? I'm in lol
The author is actually talking about the Taliban tactic of plunging fire, or lobbing fire, or whatever you want to call it, and their ability to maneuver themselves in higher elevations than US soldiers due to heir high mobility. I don't see any mention of Taliban fighters actually out shooting our soldiers, however couple dudes with super-elevated PKMs could pose a real threat to a rifle squad in a lower elevation even across the valley.
As far as the guys quoting the Marine 500m rifle qual, yeah that's great but its also real easy to do when your target is a 6ftx6ft white background with a black silhouette in the middle. Try engaging that same man sized silhouette without the white background but some foliage instead and you'll see what I'm talking about. I will say that Army marksmanship training in non-infantry type units is piss poor (I'm an aviator so have no idea what type of training my ground pounding brethren go through). It's more like a one day stop shop. Show up early in the AM, zero, qual and then you're good for 6 months. I remember in my Marine days when the range was 2 weeks long one of which was spent dry firing at a white barrel with painted silhouettes. Come to think about it I really don't miss those days though :)
All true but ist outmaneuvering the enemy and dominating and holding high ground ,ABC of warfare hasnt changed for thousands of years ,so its only bad tactics that give all freedom of movement to Taliban while super equiped professional army trys to fight out of their hummve,preferably while still siting in it.
Agreed, but it's not our infantrymen that are the problem here. It's really a combination of several factors:
-risk adverse leadership-yeah nuff said there
-not enough manpower to do the job right
-over-reliance on technology and cool guy stuff vs good old fashioned training. It's doesn't do any good to issue everyone an ACOG without training them on how to properly zero it and how to aim it for different ranges.
-and of course the armor dilemma. Don't ask Joe to hump 2 clicks uphill with 60lbs of body armour and do it as fast as the Haji's that grew up in that area and are part mountain goat.
The 5.56X45 round is effective out to 500 meters, so long as not fired from a short barreled M-4. with a 20 or 24 inch barrel the round carries just fine. Since the round is lighter than the 7.62 you can solve part of the diminished accuracy by firing more rounds. The other approach would be to have fire teams with a crew served weapon. Mechanized infantry could have small fire team vehicles, with a mortar and heavy machinegun, rather than large squad vehicles like Bradley and Stryker.
One shot one kill should be the answer.
No way will the 223 556 round do the job at distange, It's too wind sensative
The 7.62 308 round is the way to go.
Kinetic energy at distance is really good close up it has ammo to penatrate light armor. a windshild is a breez. thru a car door no problem even several inches of masonry if it's the light kid {concrete blocks ] 762 is the way to go
I like the socum II or M14 Yes they weigh more but so does a lot of that junk we have to carry.
Face it folks, this is a two fold problem. First and for most it that the young people in this country are no longer learning to shoot as kids. Big Nanny Government regulations have made it all but impossible to effectively teach our young how to use a firearm. Second is the mindset that the weapon we issue our troops has to do all the missions those troops can be called on to do. The M-4/M-16 has drawbacks just as the M-14 did, and each has it's own strengths when used in the proper environment.
You have that right, A week or two on the rife range is not going to cut it, you take a 19 year old who has been head shooting squirrels since he was 6 and you give him an M-16 A2 and he is not going to have the problem in the field. As for the issue in general, there is no such thing a perfect do it all rifle. What works well in side of towns and in buildings will be at a disadvantage in the wide open spaces. And what would be good out in the wide open would be a pain to carry in an out of vehichles. and in buildings. Looks like what is needed is one of Han Solo's Laser Blasters.
The golf bag approach sounds interesting. Have the unit armed according to their mission. Isn't that what the military is already trying to do? Aren't our forces supposed to be flexible enough to fight anywhere?
I can't even believe this is a discussion! How simple! Just give the guys a few options to choose from and let their squad or company leaders pick the right mix.
If they claim the average soldier can't shoot accurately beyond 300 yards then what is the point of giving them a rifle that has 300 yard + range? And the comment was made they just want to deliver better equipment, not more training. Why aren't combat soldiers given as much training with a rifle as necessary to all become experts? If not, what's the point?
Why are they engaging enemy soldiers using AK-47's at 300+ yard ranges? New calibers or differenti caliber rifles available is somewhat unfeasable if you add in logistics issues and lack of training with the larger caliber. Remember it is limited training with the standard issue weapon that has helped create this socalled predicament. Longer barrels, good scopes, select fire, more ammo, more training, and they should be good to go.
just a test, but is the name "Carlos Hathcock" automatically censored by this blogs software? If so cock would be replaced by 4 xxxx.
PS: excellent post. keep on digging.
I saw that, dang a censor is a cock up from the word go, Cannot even say Hathcock without bleeping out half the Marine's name.
lets see cock a doodle doo yup it's bleeped sheeesh!
Ya have to find a substitue like shi'ite when ya mean shit.
The 5.56 could be improved so that it could reach out to 500 meters. A 90 grain 5.56 with a steel core and a boat tail will retain its velocity out to 500 meters. They could also buy the Mk47 40mm ALGL for the Army. It only weighs 39 lbs. and could act like artillery for deployed soldiers.
5.56 with a 90 gr boat tail won't fit in a magazine. The 77gr loads are problematic for many rifles.
And you can explain to the crunchies they need to hump a 39 pound weapon system plus ammo up and down the mountainside. I know that's a non-starter.
With the fire control unit & tripod, the Mk-47 busts the scales at about 90lbs (41Kg), all before you start adding ammo which weighs about 1.3 pounds per round
You're not going to be running anything over 80gr. without a throated match rifle. Much more than that, and your OAL is too long for the mag and magwell.
Go 6.5G with a piston upper and call it good.
I get the sense Col. Tamilio is a master of understatement. The idea of using heavier rounds across the board is idiotic, totally inappropriate for modern combat and has been repeatedly rejected.
The reason the article has received so much press is because the salient points are in fact accurate, and the truth hurts. Based on the technological advances in the 6.5, 6.8 rounds, the question is would our Soldiers benefit from and choose a better more lethal round? I would argue they would, but as a member of the Acquisition community the real problem as I see it is inertia. A paradigm shift of that magnitude, a change in the Soldier's basic firearm, would create far-reaching political and economic consequences that few in DOD would likely champion. It is simply more expedient to keep the status quo, and accept the trade off a good, but inferior weapon/caliber than what could be fielded. Money is not the issue; from my experience the Army literally throws away billions on failed or moderately effective weapons systems. Could we put a better weapon in the hands of our Soldiers, yes. Will we, doubtful.
Not understanding the fixation on cumbersome 20-inch barrels here. The velocity gained is all of 150fps, a three percent increase over a 14-inch barrel. Maybe there's some kind of magical bullet fragmentation correlation at close quarters (which is more than offset by the M4's infinitely better handling qualities), but any increased effectiveness at long range with an M16 over an M4 is going to be mostly in your head.
Hey, here's a thought. Instead of trying to snipe bad guys throwing harassing gunfire your direction from extreme range with a weapon that is inappropriate for the close battle, why don't you get on the radio and call fire from weapons meant to operate at that range down on them? A mortar or howitzer will beat extreme-range small arms fire any day of the week.
Multiple points/replies.
1. Armchair Warloard: I believe the in addition to the additional velocity imparted by the longer (20") barrel the round gains stability due to the extra rifling in the barrel which would make the round more accurate out to a set range, i.e., 500 meters.
2. To fire the 6.8mm Remington SPC round a new upper is needed. However, new mags are NOT. You just get a lower capacity of rounds in the mag.
3. Firing from a height has inherent advantages that are increased by the fact that the AK-47 shorts a larger round. The downside is that one of the things that makes the AK series so reliable (loose machining tolerances) makes it woefully inaccurate beyond ~180 meters. Taliban/Insurgents are depending on positioning and volume of fire to create an advantage. They start with a height advantage which is difficult to overcome unless you are willing to engage in an assault up-hill and can effectively cover and fire as a unit. The insurgents can displace easier, due to lighter loads, but where do they displace to? Upwards? If we can fix them in place using sustained fire and get precision rounds (mortars, CAS) in, then we can exploit our advantages.
wrong. 6.8 and 6.5 need new mags. Case diameter on both rounds is bigger than the 5.56 and demands different internal magazine geometry. The exterior size of the magazines is the same, with a few fewer rounds, but the inside dimensions and "guts" are different.
If you are talking cost savings, Sabre Defense is already making 6.5 G barrels IIRC. They make M2 barrels for the military. Those barrels could be retrofitted onto standard DI upper recievers along with a simple bolt mag and ammo swap. Do it at the armorer level or back at the factory, then set them up with combat loads at the firebase armory and give the guys the choice between a 5.56 upper or a 6.5 upper on a unit by unit basis and see how they fare in actual combat.
The point of the 6.5 is not to replace the 7.62 for ALL jobs, but to give every infantryman a little extra reach.
6.8 can't do the range the 6.5 can either…it wasn meant to throw a heavier, bigger bullet approximately the same arc as the 5.56. It does it well, but it doesn't have the legs of the grendel.
Bob you must not know about the ROE and current policies in Stan. Mortars and Artillery are limited by range and where they are currently deployed. As most Arty and Mortar units are set up in COBS and FOBS with a max reach of around 25 miles. With the great distances between COBS/FOBS it doesnt provide overlapping coverage. Not to mention if you are near a village good luck getting Brigade approval for the Fire Mission.
As for CAS:
Helicopters – Have to fly from there assigned air field. Sometimes you are talking about a couple minutes to an hour or so flight time. Then the total ToT will be decreased because of said flight time.
Fixed Wing – Having to get higher commands approval. Aircraft has to be in the area. Weather.
Why are we buying foreign made small arms? We need to only buy American made arms. Ones that are made buy Americans, owned by Americans, using American steel, plastic, aluminum, and stop supporting the Europeans arms industry. I am pissed off that our military keeps buying machine guns and asualt rifles/battle rifles from FN. Going back to the M14 is a big mistake. It didn't work well, that clamped in trigger group/action assemble is not the way to build an accurate rifle. No other country adapted it. The m14 is the rifle the m1 Grand should have been for WWII.
What world do you live in? Have you ever shot an M14 how about in combat? I think not. First off the M14 is accurate as h***. I shot one in Iraq and own my own here in the states. The only time I have a problem with it is when I shoot really cheap ammo through it. If you think its such a big mistake how come units such as, SEALS, Delta, USA SF, Rangers, have never removed it from there inventory. By the way those units usually deploy it in the M21 sniper rifle fashion.
The 6.8 Remington SPC and 6.5 Grendal are not what is needed. The military has the little 5.56 (223 Remington) and 7.62X51 NATO (308 Winchester) and will not change. Go to the lighter 130 grain bullets in the 308 for urban and heavier bullets for everything else. We fought urban battles in WWII with the M1 Grand and did well. What worked will keep on working. Remington is producing their SR 25 in 243, 7mm08, and 308. It would not be difficult for them to meet the demand for the 7.62×51 round weapon system. Ruger is producing a AR-15 with a gas piston upper along with more than a dozen other American arms manufactures.
I totally agree. For those that think the M14 is to long, just switch to the shorted barrel system like on the Springfield SOCOM II. Before anyone says that with the shorter barrel it wont be able to make the distance shots, I challenge you to come out shoot me to say 800m. And no im not using a scope just a Eotec sight with no magnification. I am still achieving pin point accuracy.
If they want to go to another round, and I doubt congress will approve it, then bring back the 256 Pederson or 276 Pederson rounds.
Here are my step-by-step recommendations to tackle the small arms issue in the short term.
1. Take away the short barrels from M249 gunners. The short barrel and collapsible stock M249s are great in urban fighting, getting in and out of vehicles and at the chow hall. The long barrel is inconvenient but it increases the accurate fire range of the M249. I cannot tell you how many times I saw full stocked M249s with short barrels in vehicle turrets.
2. Reissue M16s ILO some of the M4s in units going to Afghanistan. M16A4s would be better, but the Army does not have many. Increase the number of M14s issued to units, but do not stop at just infantry units, some CS units spend a lot of time outside the wire (MP, Engineer, and Chemical).
3. Depot convert existing M16s and M4s for the Afghan fight. M16 – change to flat top receiver, change handguards to add rails, add collapsible stock (including modification to gas system to make it work with long barrel). M4 – Add 20-inch barrel with modified gas system and upgraded handguards.
Okay say you do get the range. Doesn't mean you get the stopping power to kill them.
The 6.8 Rem. SPC just duplicates the 7.62 X39 Russian round. Why not just use the Russian round rather than go that route? What is needed is more case capacity. Some of the old 6.5mm European military rounds could fill the need in a new, American designed, American owned and produced weapon system.
Granting that the 5.56mm isn't the gratest round in the world, I still fail to grasp why the Army is still issuing out the M-4 in droves to guys headed to the A-Stan. The M-4A1 is a carbine, it's role is that of a carbine, its accuracy is that of a carbine. Frankly, unless you're a tanker, a supply guy/girl, any other type of combat support-can't-fit-a-full-sized M-16A2/3/4 in the truck, then you shouldn't be packing an M-4A1. Yeah they look cool, and yeah SOCOM uses them, but the weapon fails to measure up in the fight we're in the A-Stan. The golf bag approach would be glorious, having a pleathora of small arms for each Company to be divvied up depending on the requirements of the mission they will be used, but I don't see that happening, Congress would soil themselves at the thought of each Soldier or Marine having a full sized battle rifle, an intermediate carbine, and an M-4A1. But until something better comes along, atleast for the guys and girls downrange in the A-Stan, what is preventing the Army from issuing full size M-16A2/3/4 variants to supplement the M-14 EBRs slowly coming down the pipe?
XM25 is coming with point accuracy to 500m and area to 700m. Can't imagine line troops being accurate with any direct fire rifle out to 500m and beyond. The bad guy is hiding in the rocks or running anyway. His fires are not effective and primarily harassing at that range, yes, no? Isn't that why you have .50 cal on your M-ATV/MRAP or in the COP?
Reading about XM25, seems like you could couple the built-in laser rangefinder to a GPS mounted on the weapon and electronically feed grid coordinates of lased target areas to a 60mm mortar launcher with GPS airburst rounds. Just my 2 cents.
The XM 25 seems too dependent on technolgy to survive on the battle field. The cost of those "smart fuses" will result in limited practice with the weapon system. It would be like the Army AMU and would need a tech team to fix the weapon when it gets broke, just like the M-14 needed constant care.
Complaints about Marine Corps rifle range training, i.e., perfect conditions (except for friendly NCOs) miss the point. Marines are taught fire discipline. What is learned on the firing range carries over, not always to be sure but the training never leaves you. The Army would do well to invest more time on the firing range to create marksmen, without regard to the weapon. The caliber argument belongs in a different dialog.
I absolutely agree with you. Even though I went to bootcamp 13 years ago I still retain most of what was taught during that phase and the annual iterations thereafter. Like I said earlier most soldiers out of basic nowadays have no idea how to properly zero a rifle. The M4 vs M16 debate doesn't hold much water either. The bullet velocities for each riffle are very close. A M4 with a properly zeroed ACOG and a properly trained soldier is just as deadly at 500yds and closing as a M16. I think one additional problem with Army units in Afghanistan is that the Army chose the M68 CCO as the standard optic for its weapons (there are ACOGs floating around in the inventory but that's not the standard). That's because when that decision was made we were knee deep in Iraq where it was the perfect choice for the fight at the time. The Marines, I believe went the other route with the ACOG as theirs. No magnification vs 4x makes a huge difference when the engagement envelope extends past 250 yds. A quick solution to this would be to field the add on magnifier to the M68, that should improve some of the statistics in my opinion.
Organize a unit armed only with M-14's then scatter M-4's among the LT's and SNCO's add a couple of pistols for close pistol work and a sniper, an attached M-240 some dedicated thump gunners then take on some taliban and see what happens.
Just finished reading the report as wel as some others and it seems there are a few issues at play here:
Training: Basically, because the Army is in dire need of more troops, the training standards (both marksmanship and physical fitness) have been dropped to some of the lowest levels in recent times. This needs to be remedied. More stringent fitness standards combined with more realistic and extensive marksmanship training are a must. Also more training on weapon maintanance is desperately needed. These 3 things are all fairly easy to implement, because they've already been implemented in the past.
Equipment: Learning to use your ACOG correctly is just as important as learning how to operate your rifle but so far this kind of thing has barely been adressed.
Ammunition: The 5.56x45mm was not designed for fighting at distances over 300 metres. That's just the way it is. If it turns out you are fighting at distances longer than that, you need to use a different calibre. Improvements to the 5.56 will only buy you an extra 50-100 metres at best, not the 300 you need. Start rolling out more 7.62 or start buying 6.8SPC/6.5 Grendel upgrade kits for people deploying to Afghanistan. There really is no other way than to change calibre, the 5.56x45mm is already at 95% of it's peak performance, it just isnt going to get any better, sorry.
Tactics: Mountain warfare lessons learned in WW2 & Korea have been completely forgotten and are not being implemented, neither are lessons learned from the soviet invasion of Afghanistan ("The bear crosses over the mountain" is a great read as it describes lots of operations the russians performed with a little post action analysis of what worked well and what went wrong, TBH it should be required reading for officers going to Afghanistan but what the heck, why bother learning from other people mistakes right?)
Weapons: One rifle to rule them all just doesnt work. The only certainty in war is uncertainty and you can expect only the unexpected meaning that you need to flexibility to be able to adapt to your conditions. Giving everyone the same rifle with the same calibre is just asking for trouble.
It's been tried before and every single time it turns out that a mix of different types of weapons and calibres is needed in order to succesfully be able to complete your task.
So:
Short-term:
Bring out the M14s. Lots of them. Now. 1 in 4 soldiers should be using a 7.62 weapon platform.
Mid-term:
Start looking at testing 6.5mm & 6.8mm intermediate cartridges and comparing them to the 5.56. Once the MASSIVE performance increase is actually noticed, you will be able to have a good justifiable basis for moving to replace the 5.56mm calibre altogether
Long-term:
Get the f*ck out of Afghanistan….lol
According to my understanding of the firearms the M4 is just as accurate as the M16 – the extra six inches of barrel essentially does nothing beyond giving you a three-percent velocity boost. On accurized weapons this is probably a different story, but talking rack-grade guns you're not getting much out of a 20-inch barrel. The Arms has full-up M16s listed as effective against point targets to 550 instead of 500m, FWIW.
ACOGs have range scales out to six or eight hundred meters, and 5.56mm firearms (to include the 14-inch barrel M4 carbine) are listed as effective out to at least six hundred meters for area targets. I fail to see the issue here – if your enemy is firing at you from more than 600m away call fire or let longer-ranged machine guns do the work. Contrary to some of the comments above, Afghan RoE dictate that if you need fire support you get it.
Now, 7.62mm firearms are listed as effective out to ~850m, but you're going to be balancing that against the fact the ammo weighs twice as much so you have half the effectiveness at suppressing the enemy or half the endurance in a firefight. In some situations that may be worth it. Most of the time, that's a potentially deadly liability.
WarScientist, thanks for the recommendation of TBWotM. I looked into that and found a companion, "The Other Side of the Mountain" –from the mujaheddin's perspective. Good stuff.
From what I have seen so far. these really should be required reading for all deploying over there. I found them online:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA316729…
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA376862…
Fifty bucks says Col Tomilio has a job waiting at Colt when he retires.
Lot at how he has tap danced around the issue of the 5.56/M4 previously.
And as much as I love the M14, I really do… it is not the solution. It is like aspirin for a broken leg… just not going to cut it.
I don't think we need everyone to have a 7.62 rifle, 6.5 has the reach, accuracy and terminal ballistics and we can refit the M16/M4s for it.
Gotta buy new mags? So what… BFD.
The cost of new mags isnt even a rounding error at 0.002 decimal places on the DOD budget.
We are still buying NEW M4s people so it isnt an issue of "We don't want to buy new guns, we already have enough".
As a soldier and NCO I'm pretty sick of it.
But F35s and such…
Wow… The big wigs just cant get enough of them… spend spend away.
You know guys… If you wouldn't have f**ked up by picking the ACU's and buying all those uniforms and equipment in ACU pattern…. we'd have some money for new guns.
F**k it. Grunts don't matter to these guys… 'Cept maybe the good Major.
~
Ok, all of you experts.
The war is going to be won with game boys flying Predators, wearing their flight suits in Iowa.
The only reason infantry is in Afghanistan is…. Actually, I have no clue. Oh, so General Dipshitz can get another merit badge to wear.
The 5.56mm is a far better round for a close-range combat than the 7.62mm.
Get shot with either at 100m and it's game over. So why carry half the ammo in 7.62mm.
They need to go back the BAR and M60. Both are great weapons, 7.62mm and has the range to hit its target. Far as the 5.56mm aka the .22 it is for short range and is a piece of junk. Next lets talk about the piece of junk 9mm pistol. So you have 15rds to shoot and takes 3 to 4rds to stop a target. Easy fix to the problem Colt.45! Speaking of the .45cal Thompson sub-machine gun is very good close range fighting weapon.
yes the Marines are trained to shoot and if they do not pass they are recycled back for another 2 weeks. I think the Army should do the same. Think about this WWI online the lines, there was distance of 300 yards between the Germans, where the Marines at, the gap was 700 yards. Due to the Fact 1. they could shoot and 2. they had a rifle that had the range and was 7.62mm.
HK-91,and a 45 ACP or 10mm handgun, and get off the BS FMJ rule and issue some soft points or hollow points. I don't mind the extra weight of the 308's since it should only take one to do the job instead of 3-5 FMJ's from a 5.56….a detachable 3-9X scope would be a bonus. The HK will do just about everything I need, and I can EFFECTIVELY clear rooms with the 45 or 10mm.
It looks like the navy gunclub got recycled to dod procurement. dont con't confuse paidoff politicians with facts .they will do what pays the best for them reguardless of what happens in the field.
I keep seeing comments about the troops not being trained to shoot beyond 300 meters. I don't get it. Given, I trained with an M14 in 1968, but I had no problem at (what I think was) 460 meters using iron sights. Shooting to that distance wasn't much different than shooting to 300 meters – set your sights, give it a little 'Kentucky windage if the wind is blowing, and blast away. I knew how to shoot before joining the service (owned an 1903A3 30-06 Springfield, but never shot it at more than 150 meters), but I can't imagine our troops lose their heads if they have to shoot over 300 meters, unless the sights can't be adjusted for that distance.
Elmo that's just pure marine bullshit, Just find battle of Hue film's and take a good look at that jarhead putting his 16 over his head and wall and letting 18 rounds go into space.
Hell even their hero Ermey was a the only REMF in the marine corp.
Everybody needs to get off this bandwagon of the 6.5 or 6.8. It's not gonna happen. It would require to much work to go from 5.56 to 6.5 or 6.8. I for one am tired of hearing "oh 6.5 this" or "6.8 that". Whatever not gonna happen.
the enemy's calibers are 762×39, 545×39, and 762×54, It's not the weapon, it's the operator running it, UP the weapons training by focusing on distances that are out of the comfort zone, with bad wind's and unorthodox shooting positions, more teamwork and communication between shooters, shot placement and mid to long rang optics for eye's on like give troops more thermal scopes and extensive optics training for the carbine's the are running… cheers!