Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan
- Thread starter rdelliott
- Start date
tell you what, I will even give you another 100 yds, would you be willing to stand in front of my AR at 300 yds and be shot ??
range does not mean anything except how it affects the shooters ability to accurately place his rounds.... a head shot is a headshot and a shot to the vitals is a shot to the vitals.... the question begs to be asked is where a soldier is "aiming" when he pulls the trigger.... I would suggest he is aiming COM.
unless he hits a solid organ in the upper Abd. or breaks the pelvis that enemy is not going to be nuetralized.... one shot kills only happen when the heart or nervous system is stopped, either thru bleeding out or thru spinal/brain disruption.
range does not mean anything except how it affects the shooters ability to accurately place his rounds.... a head shot is a headshot and a shot to the vitals is a shot to the vitals.... the question begs to be asked is where a soldier is "aiming" when he pulls the trigger.... I would suggest he is aiming COM.
unless he hits a solid organ in the upper Abd. or breaks the pelvis that enemy is not going to be nuetralized.... one shot kills only happen when the heart or nervous system is stopped, either thru bleeding out or thru spinal/brain disruption.
I believe I already answered the question in my last post. But you haven't answered. Which would you choose?
- Location
- On the beach
I have gone to war with the C7 and the C8.....but I'm not an "armchair soldier" so I guess the fact that I both like and trust my rifle doesn't really hold any water.......come to think of it I haven't really heard any #####ing out of the guys I served with over there in referance to their long arms.........Pistols? Yup, pers kit? yup, rifles? nope.
I would choose neither when in the hands of an experienced and effective combat soldier.... does not matter what you get shot with is the point I am trying to make when the rifle and cartridge is used accurately. I would prefer to be shot at by some ak47 being held over the head of an islamist with no aim.
the talk of "small arms" is just that... small arms, they are not meant to be the end all be all of modern warfare, that is what m240's, mortors, artillery and air support are for.... a rifle is used to protect the soldier from "danger close" infantry, in modern warfare.
Todays war is more urban then rural the 5.56 is more then effective. Sure there are instaces when the 308 would be more effective.... but frankly the stop gap measure of the 6.8 or 7.62x39 or any of the 6.5's is just that.... a stop gap measure when frankly the 308 which is proven should be fielded.... till then the 5.56 works just as well against soft targets.
Your point is noted but the fact still remains that this 5.56 round is still inferior. I also would not like to be hit with any round but if I was hit I would rather it be with a 5.56 than a 7.62. I'm convinced that aside all the rhetoric you believe the same otherwise you would have answered the question and confirmed the point of the report.
Look I'm mot trying to pick a fight here, all I am saying that this round is lacking when it comes to distance and believe that if there is tech out there that will give our soldiers (God Bless them) the advantage, not only from 0 to 200 meters but from 0 to 1000 meters then I believe that it should be seriously considered.
How about you?
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
you should balance this with the multiple hits of 5.56 vs single 7.62 hit.
Much easier to control 5.56 for burst... if its worth shooting its worth a burst
Brrrrrrrrrap ammo is cheap and we have that little fun switch that works Hey, if our boys need a DMR lets get them the training and the right weapon, but frankly...Roll in the Jdams.
The idea of some Canadian boy exposing his head with his DMR in an attempt to shoot some worthless idiot is over-rated. I want that boy coming home and could care less about political hearts and minds...When it comes to our boys or them...Leave them on the walls.
Our boys do so much more for hearts and minds that the US troops it is ridiculous. When our boys call in a Jdam they do so because they need it...Not because an idiot is taking pot shots.
I think it is fair to say our troops have a different mindset and they certainly don't roll (patrol)like a bunch of gangsters.
I say take my tax dollars, roll in the Jdams, and let allah put the pieces back together.
Keep your head down Reaper.
We want you home safe.
No disrespect but you've all been trained to maximize the utilization of all available resources so it serves no purpose to ##### but to make due with what is available. You Guy's and gal's put yourselves in harms way to defend our country and way of life and for that all I can say is "thank You from the bottom of my heart " and believe that there should be no compromise when it comes to the equipment you use.
why should we be shooting things at 1000 yds with a rifle ??? I think you are failing to see the usage of the normal combat rifle.... in the hands of a normal soldier.
other then that I am not going to argue with you, you fail to see the point and wrap everything around to your point of view.... your right, everyone else is wrong..... the round is effective, it is the placement of it that is the determining factor in immobilization.
I'm Just a dummy so Let me get this straight.
You don’t see the advantage of a M16 chambered to 6.8 SPC or even better 6.5-mm Grendel that would retain most of the characteristics of the M16 chambered 5.56, but have a hard target penetration so good that it exceeded the penetration capability of 7.62x51-mm out to a distance of 1000 meters. READ THE REPORT!
If this were on the market today you would deny our soldiers this clear advantage on the battlefield?
You know what you are absolutely right there is nothing left to discuss.
Although I am not "anti-5.56" at all, I always think those "would you stand in front of my AR" arguments are stupid.
I also wouldn't let you put a staplegun to my eye and squeeze it...but that does not mean stapleguns would be a good choice as a primary infantry weapon.
I wouldn't let you give me a blowjob either...but I don't see that as a practical fighting tool for today's soldier.
In fact the list of things I would not let people do to me is pretty long, and it includes "shooting me with anything that will hurt more than a paintball".
But that does not mean that paintball guns are a realistic power floor for combat weapons.
That said I definitely think that there is nothing inherently wrong with 5.56 as a military caliber, and I think that if we put the amount of money it would cost to change calibers and platforms into training, we'd probably get more bang for our buck.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Today I learned what a JDAM is, although I am unsure about COIN and a few others...
you want me to send you a list
It's pretty much needed when you army guys start blabbing away
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
Is the solution a new caliber in the same rifle? Or is it a new caliber in a new rifle?
Let's look at solution #2 first. New caliber in a new rifle.
Pros.
More lethal
Cons.
New design ...in the middle of a war?
Complete revamping of training program ...in the middle of a war?
Complete in situ replacement of the existing small arms family....in the middle of a war?
Complete replacement of the in place supplies of ammo......in the middle of a war?
Discussion:
Please raise your hand if you really think that right now is a good time to develop and field a replacement rifle for the C-7 FOW. Now, take that hand, smack yourself in the forehead and hopefully some sense settles in.
Let's look at solution #1 next. New Caliber in the same rifle.
Pros.
More lethal
Similar operation and function
No need to completely revamp training
Cons.
Complete replacement of the in place supplies of ammo in the middle of a war?
Fitting a new caliber in the same rifle limits the amount of ballistic improvment that's possible, it will still be a compromise, not a solution.
Possibility of mixing parts/ammo/re-supply IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR.
Discussion:
See the note above, it's a compromise to try and save money by retaining most of the existing platform.
My conclusions:
Because it's a compromise, it will not provide a generational increase in capability, instead, it will be an incremental increase. Bear in mind, that the push for the 6.5/6.8 rounds was due to the decreased effectiveness of rounds fired from short-barreled 5.56 rifles. (If an expert wants to correct me on this, go ahead.)
If a new cartridge/rifle combination is to be adopted, we should do it once the war we're fighting is done.
Over to the floor for comments and flames, but those are my thoughts.
NS
Let's look at solution #2 first. New caliber in a new rifle.
Pros.
More lethal
Cons.
New design ...in the middle of a war?
Complete revamping of training program ...in the middle of a war?
Complete in situ replacement of the existing small arms family....in the middle of a war?
Complete replacement of the in place supplies of ammo......in the middle of a war?
Discussion:
Please raise your hand if you really think that right now is a good time to develop and field a replacement rifle for the C-7 FOW. Now, take that hand, smack yourself in the forehead and hopefully some sense settles in.
Let's look at solution #1 next. New Caliber in the same rifle.
Pros.
More lethal
Similar operation and function
No need to completely revamp training
Cons.
Complete replacement of the in place supplies of ammo in the middle of a war?
Fitting a new caliber in the same rifle limits the amount of ballistic improvment that's possible, it will still be a compromise, not a solution.
Possibility of mixing parts/ammo/re-supply IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR.
Discussion:
See the note above, it's a compromise to try and save money by retaining most of the existing platform.
My conclusions:
Because it's a compromise, it will not provide a generational increase in capability, instead, it will be an incremental increase. Bear in mind, that the push for the 6.5/6.8 rounds was due to the decreased effectiveness of rounds fired from short-barreled 5.56 rifles. (If an expert wants to correct me on this, go ahead.)
If a new cartridge/rifle combination is to be adopted, we should do it once the war we're fighting is done.
Over to the floor for comments and flames, but those are my thoughts.
NS
Yes you have it right.Giving the troops another rifle in another caliber doesn't help when they can't hit the broadside of a barn and think that 300m is the max effective range.Like others have said several times here already, its about shot placement and the shooter.NOT the caliber.5.56 has killed plenty of bad guys dead already.
As for penetration,if your shooting at a guy behind a barrier and your rounds aren't doing anything, then maybe you should try aiming somewhere else....like his head or an exposed body part.
RE: History Channel - Snipers - In Vietnam an average of 50,000+ 223 cal rounds from the M16 per 1 enemy kill ratio. Conversely 1.3 rounds out of the M-40 & Winchester Model 70 per 1 enemy kill ratio. Proper sniper training and a rifle capable of good accuracy & lethality at 500-1000 yards of distance was the main difference in achieving the higher kill ratio with the 308 cal. It did not say how many kills were attributed to each platform though - so a little inconclusive.
But we know both platforms (DMR) & (M16) working in tandem achieve the best results - but at what ratio is the question for a said given scenario. Is 1 (DMR) in 10 (M16) adequate for Afghanistan - because of the open terrain - probably not?
But we know both platforms (DMR) & (M16) working in tandem achieve the best results - but at what ratio is the question for a said given scenario. Is 1 (DMR) in 10 (M16) adequate for Afghanistan - because of the open terrain - probably not?
Last edited:
