Gun Trouble The rifle that today's infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s—and it is badly flawed. Military lives depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic. So why can't the richest country in the world give its soldiers better ones?
the AR is plenty reliable enough and AK's DO malfunction if you get enough crud in the wrong place. The .30 caliber is long since gone the way of the dodo bird, so we are discussing an AK in 223 or .20 AK caliber, not the 7.62 x 39. Our troops MISS with about 50,000 rifle shots for every kill or solid hit that they get, which is why nobody worries much about what rifle they use. If I was spending the night asleep and there was clay-dust everywhere, I'd cover my rifle with my poncho or something while I slept (and any other time that I didn't see immediate need for it. I'd do this if I had an AK, too. It just makes no sense to expose your weapon to crap when you don't have to do so. Many battlefield studies show that over 90% of the hits are obtained at ranges under 100 yds and that most hits are random accidents. they also show that the rifle only achieves about 10% of the casulties. the belt feds get as much, disease, accidents and "friendly fire" get 10-30%, and the rest are due to fire, buildng collapse, and shrapnel type weapons. So the rifle means VERY little, even if it works flawlessly. Also, we know that most men cannot kill at the individual level, which accounts for a lot of the missed shots. Furthermore, we know that many of the men who are able to do such killing suffer for it later, with nightmares and the like.
troops are always (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing, so what? the facts are what I stated. You're trying to duck them with your bs about who has been where, but it won't work. The Garand and M14 had plenty of problems, too, with grit into the exposed bolt and op rods bending and the like. The military (thru Spld arsenal) did their best, cheating like hell during the M16 testing to get it NOT accepted. Gene Stoner had to go watch the trials personally to put a stop to the sort of crap that they were pulling to make his design fail.
I never commented on the OP, the thread is an opinion piece that millions of combat vets agree with. It's the opinion of Robert H. Scales is a retired major general and former commandant of the Army War College. When I served, the Marine Corps had three service rifles that were issued. The M-1 Garand, the M-14 and the M-16 A1. Here's how they were issued, all FMF Marines were issued the M-14. All Marine security forces and Marine ship detachments were issued the M-1 Garand. By 1967 all Marines who were in-country in the Republic of South Vietnam were ordered by SECDEF McNamara to turn in their M-14's for the M-16 pea shooter. How many rounds of ammunition do you think the average soldier and Marine went into combat with ? Well during WW l, WW ll, the Korean War usually from 80 rounds to 180 rounds. What do you think was the ammunition expenditure per day in heavy combat per day for those armed with the M-1 Garand ? From as low as low as 43 rounds on Tarawa and as high as 87 rounds per day on Makin Island. Now your .30 Cal machine guns would go through just a little more than 1,000 rounds per day. What are machine guns for ? Laying down surpressive fire for the rifleman so he can close in with the enemy and kill him with his rifle. http://www.ww2gyrene.org/assets/ammo_expenditure.jpg During the Battle of Belleau Woods during WW l when U.S. Marines advanced on the Germans position they started engaging the Germans from 900 yards with their 03 Springfields and were killing so many Germans the Germans called them "Devil Dogs." When the M-1 Garand was adopted and starting to be issued, fire discipline took a hit but not much. When the M-14 was adopted in the late 1950's again fire discipline took a hit but not so much. But when the M-16 was adopted fire discipline went in to the crapper and remains in the crapper today. Today's soldiers are just putting a lot of lead down range, basically point aiming. They aim their weapons as if they were in close combat. Americans have always been known for their rifle marksmanship going back to Colonial times when they had smooth bore muskets. But something took place starting around the mid or late 1990's, Americans are no longer the marksmen like their fathers and grand fathers were before them. Even the Marine Corps who for over 200 years turned out the best combat marksmen in the world noticed they have a big problem today. You saw the "Effective Range Definition" thread didn't you ? The maximum effective range of the 03 Springfield was 600 yards. The M-14 and M-16 A2 are 500 yards. Meaning that your average marksman should hit a human target 50% of the time from 500 yards. Sharpshooters 75% of the time. Rifle experts 90% to 100% of the time. I qualified during boot camp with the M-14, I shot a 238, expert. In Vietnam they issued me the M-16 A1 and I qualified shooting Charley. When I returned to the CONUS aftery tour of duty I requalified again with the M-14, scored a 240, again rifle expert. On a bad day I can put 90% of my rounds in the black or five ring from 500 yards or 500 meters. On a good day I can put 100% of the rounds in the black. That's with open iron sights. Today U.S. Marines are only on an average to hit a human target from 500 yards 30% of the time. The Army is even worse, at 10% of the time. This is unacceptable. This is un-American !!!If Marine Corps rifle marksmanship training worked for over 150 years why not today ? I know why the U.S. Army is so (*)(*)(*)(*) poor, they no longer have their soldiers qualifying on the 500 yard KD range. The Army think all fire fights will take place less than 300 yards, NOT as they found out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Re: Ugene Stoner, be careful there are a few of us old timers around and even on the PF who personally know Stoner. Stoner is a U.S. Marine, don't you know ? The adoption of the M-16 was all politics (JFK/McNamara) and Air Force General Curtis LeMay doing. Gen. LeMay wanted to replace the Air Force M-1 carbine and M-2 carbines with a new rifle. Can you blame him ? I suppose the M-14 was to much of a rifle for airmen to handle ?
Yet another AR post (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the way the kids do it today. So tell me Apache, are you still pissed off that they took the M1903 away as well? *grin*
but men aint 20" circles as targets, they are 8" targets, nothing but an arm and a shoulder, around cover, and they dont STAY exposed, either. The rifle has almost no role today, the thing to do is leapfrog around resistance, with tanks, APC's, choppers, take the strategic areas and let the lack of food and water kill off the pockets of resistance, without the loss of so many of our men. Just because YOU want to do it the stupid, hard way does not mean that we should go backwards in our tactics.
regardless of the range at which men START shooting, the HITTING is 90+% done at less than 100m of range, and most hits are random accidents, too. This was determined by MANY studies done during and after WW2. The BAR guy usually started things and then the Garands would chime in. So the Army felt that the 'way to go was give everyone an M4. but they overlooked the fact that the M14 fired at twice the rate of the BAR and weighed half as much. Naturally, that means that the M14 rises 4x as much in full auto firing, making it basically worthless for such. anyone could have told them that, and firing the first prototype HAD to show them that, but they STILL put the full auto capability into EVERY M14, making CERTAIN that it could NEVER be sold to civilians later. Stupid bastards threw away billions of $
First of all, why not name all of these studies you keep referring to ? The most quoted study about American soldiers during WW ll was debunked many decades ago. Not every M-14 was capable of full auto fire. Any M-14 could be easily converted to being capable of full auto fire by just replacing the full auto selector switch and one doesn't need to be a gun smith. Usually only the squad automatic rifleman was issued a full auto capable M-14. During my tour of duty in the Corps I was issued four different M-14's and none had the full fire selector switch. Since the M-14 weighed only 9.5 pounds, it was to light to be deployed as a SAW. Where as the BAR depending on which model weighed usually 16 pounds which would mean it had about 40% less recoil than the M-1 Garand. The BAR was very accurate when fired in the semi-auto mode. The rule of thumb, for every 10% of weight added to any rifle or hand gun, decrease recoil by 10%. Works the other way around. If you ever been lucky enough to fire a Thompson sub machine gun, you notice there very little recoil. Most soldiers and Marines couldn't control a M-14 at full auto fire. But some could. It took an average size or larger person to be able to control a M-14 as a SAW. The secret was, if right handed you grabbed the sling near the forward sling loop with your left hand and pulled down as much as possible while firing the weapon in full auto mode. The M-14 with a bi-pod being used as a SAW did all right when in the prone position laying out a decent cone of fire. "Cone of fire," remember that, it's what you want with any machine gun or SAW when laying down suppressive fire.
8 inches, how freaking skinny are you ? The following aren't my words but I concur. No remember, I'm old schooled and during basic we only qualified on the 500 yard KD range. We didn't start using combat rifle ranges until after boot camp during ITR and Staging Battalion if you got your WestPac orders.
The 03 Springfield ? No military experienced with the 03, only as a civilian but when I served most of the senior SNCO's and field and flag grade officer were "Old Breed" Marines with even some "Old Corps" China Marines just about to reach or with over 30 years of service. Yes, the Old Corps Marines preferred the 03 while almost all of the WW ll "Old Breed" favored the M-1 Garand. Take the Marine Vietnam vet from 65 to 70, all had experience with both the M-14 and M-16 A1 and many who served at Marine Barracks or on Marine ship detachments also were very familiar with the M-1 Garand. I would say the vast majority preferred the M-14 over the M-16 and those who had served at Marine Barracks and also in Vietnam preferred the M-1 Garand. By 1970 all of the FNG Marines who started showing up in Vietnam only experience with the M-14 was during boot camp, the M-16 was being issued during ITR and the M-16 was being issued at Staging Battalion back in 67 so these FNG's only knew the M-16 and had nothing to really compare it too. My brother did a tour in Vietnam with the M-16. In 1970 he did a tour at Gitmo's Marine Barracks and was issued the M-1 Garand. He hated Gitmo, considered the worse duty station in the Corps and said he would have rather been back in the Nam. But one thing he liked about serving at Gitmo was the M-1 Garand. The 03 Springfield served it's country well from WW l, the Banana Wars and with the China Marines and into WW ll on the Canal and even the North Africa campaign. But look at the 03 Springfield's rear sights, they aren't battle sights but target sights where a marksman could reach out and touch the enemy from 1,000 yards away. Look at the rear sights apertures of the M-1 Garand and M-14, these two rifles are long range battle rifles. A marksman should be able to kill the enemy from 500 yards away. One thing they got right with the M-16 A2, it had two rear sights, one for close in combat and one for long range combat but the rear long range aperture is larger than on the M-1 or M-14. None of the M-16 family of rifles are long range battle rifles. The best battle rifle ever fielded ? Has to be either the M-1 Garand or the British .303 Enfield No. l Mk 4. Probably no other infantry rifle has seen such a long use in combat than the .303 Enfield.
my bad, it should read, after the garand M1, the military wanted to give everyone a full auto M14, not M4 IF the enemy was stupid enough to just STAND there, fully exposed, erect, etc, the troops MIGHT be able to hit them with every other shot, at 500 yds IF our troops had hear protection and are not being shot at and IF it's not dark or the sun is blotted out with sandstorms, rain, snow, fog, etc, and IF the enemy has allowed you time to adjust your sights. See, the 308 AMMO is just 2 moa, which means it won't group better than 10" at 500 yds, with a PERFECT rifle and shooter. But the reality is that guys aint perfect and rack grade M14's, with typical ball ammo, group at best 15" at 500 yds, which aint good enough to get reliable hits on men at that distance. The 308 has been abandoned by every major military group for over 40 years now. The 30 AK has been abandoned for over 30 years, too. Get over it, it's not only no loss, we gained a lot by going to the 223. the reality, tho, is that LOTS of missing is done at less than 50 yds, so we went with the 223 so that we can carry twice as much ammo. Regardless of how potentially good a gun is, if the user is out of ammo, the gun's nothing but a club. Regardless of how good a shot a man is, if he's out of ammo, he's useless in a fire fight, too. ammo has to be moved into a combat zone by the BILLIONs of rds, so the weight and bulk savings of the .223 is not seen at just the individual level. it's also seen in the trucks and planes that do not need to be burdened with the pointless extra weight and bulk of the 308 ammo. In any case, the enemy does NOT just stand there and let you shoot them. They use cover, they dodge when they run, they fire back, they use smoke and darkness and moving vehicles, they ambush you, they attack when you are really from the effects of exploding rocket grenade, mortar, mines, or from IED detonations, and the like. Only morons claim that combat accuracy is anything like practice range possiblities.
To start with I've never been in military combat, nor am I a gun nut/expert(only own 2), however I do take this subject quite seriously. Both in regards to our military, in particular infantry, being well equipped and myself being well equipped. I have friends and family that experienced heavy combat in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That they were/are poorly equipped and poorly lead(politically) really pisses me off. Personally I'm a preparedness guy, IMO if needed I'll have to heavily rely on one rifle, for that reason I want the best rifle. As you might expect I find my older friends and family prefer the M1 Garand and M14, the younger M16/M4. A few years ago though I became friends with a Ranger who was in Somalia in 93, he is an AK fan. When I was making my decision I quickly came to the conclusion that neither 5.56NATO nor 7.62x39 are enough cartridge and settled on 7.62NATO/.308Win. That put me at AR10 or M14, I chose AR10. My understanding is that Stoner originally designed the AR for 7.62NATO? To my mind the direct impingement in line design of the AR makes much more since with the larger cartridge. The strength of the design is in recoil management with a quite light rifle, with the 5.56 this aspect isn't really utilized. That if the 5.56 is chosen the modernized Mini 14(AC556) is likely a much better choice. I personally as someone with a mechanical aptitude like the direct impingement system. I do see however how fouling can be an issue, personally though I see a better solution then a piston design. To my mind the failure is in the design of the bolt carrier assembly itself not in the direct impingement idea. The bolt carrier assembly has two flaws. First the firing pin retaining pin is a pain in the arse, hard to remove and easy to lose. Secondly the sealing of the gas chamber within the bolt carrier and the bolt is crap. A seal at the rear of the bolt would do wonders for keeping the gasses out of the trigger/hammer area and firing pin. To my limited mind the adoption of the M110 was a big step in the right direction that needs to trickle down. That a less sniper specific version should be put into the works for issuance to infantrymen, in particular Marines who score rifle expert. I'm curious APACHERAT what you would specifically advocate changing? EDIT Lastly there is a design out there of the AR, can't remember who is marketing it, that is select fire and when in full auto fires from an open bolt. A version that fires closed bolt semi, and open bolt auto would be a great solution to the overheating problem.
It all depends who the enemy is and where you are at and what war. In Vietnam you rarely saw Charley during the day time. If you did find him or more likely they found you and they wanted to fight they were in the tree line in the prone position. But the American soldier owned the day time while the NVA and VC owned the night, this is when they brought out their artillery, rockets and some times their tanks if it was up in l-Corps and most combat took place at night (0-Dark Thirty) Vietnam War slang for the hours that Charley decided to engage American forces, between 2430 hours to just before dawn. If Charley was using tracers all you saw were the green tracers coming at you. During the Korean War, you had Chinese troops in the thousands making a frontal attack and you started engaging the chi-coms from beyond 500 yards. Eventually they were on top of you. In the Pacific theatre during WW ll Marines were trained to only to fire their rifles when they actually had a Jap (used in historical context) in their rifle sights. There was excellent fire discipline and a Marine rifleman ammunition expenditure in heavy combat was between 40 to 80 rounds per day. In Europe ammunition expenditure by American soldiers was about the same but they were firing their rifles when they didn't have a German soldier lined up in their sights. For the past 15 years the American military has been engaged in two low intensity wars, not comparable to Vietnam, Korea or WW ll. No it hasn't all of the general purposde machine guns are still chambered for the 7.62 and designated riflemen still are armed with rifles chambered for the 7.62. The only reason NATO forces rifles are chambered for the 5.56 is because they were forced to by the USA. All NATO countries are required to use the same caliber ammunition. Many European countries complained. The biggest problem with the M-16/M-4 besides it's gas system which sucks but the cartridge that it's chambered for, the 5,56 NATO. Remington did come up with a larger round that AR's (Arma-Lite) action rifles could easily be converted to be chambered for, the 6.8 MM. So what's the hang up ? The U.S. Marine Corps wants to covert all their M-16's to the 6.8 round. Money, Congress wont appropriate the money.
I'm advocating a new cartridge like the Remington 6.8 if the U.S military is going to continue to use the AR operating system. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have adopted an upgraded 7.62 AR-10 as it's sniper rifle, the M-110 that you already mentioned. I believe Marine designated riflemen have replaced their M-14's with the M-110. But you still have Stoner's gas system which blows a lot of crap back into the rifles receiver and trigger housing that causes a maintenance problem in the field. You never had that problem with the M-1 Garand or M-14 that used a gas piston and a recoil guide and spring. I haven't gotten my hands on an AR chambered for the Remington 6.8 but from hearsay and on paper it's looks better than what the Army and Marines are using today. Build a new rifle around the 6.8 cartridge where it's uses a gas piston operating system. I'm old schooled and I'm a big fan of the .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO cartridge. Be it in combat, hunting or survival it's the way to go. I own a Pre-64 Winchester Mod. 70 chambered for the Winchester .270. If Winchester would have chambered the Pre-64 Mod. 70's for the .308 that's what I would have gone with. But before 1964 the Mod. 70's were only chambered for full size rifle cartridges like the .270 and 30-06. What makes the Winchester Pre-64 Mod. 70's so special and one of the best rifles ever manufactured is that it has a Mauser action. Below is an excerpt with a link of the testing that the Marine Corps put the M-1 Garand through before adopting the M-1. How many of today's military rifles do you think would pass the test today ?
