GWOT lessons and the future carbine.
- Thread starter ggh
- Start date
- Status
That is, sadly, true.
The problem was solved in 1950 with the FN FAL in 280 British...
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-280-fal/
And the British EM2 for the bullpup fans (I'm not one of them)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle
The British studied everything possible from WW2 experience and basically said something like nothing more than 280 British can be controllable in full auto fire.
The US said: we don't give a damn and want a 30-06 look alike but will standardize on a contest winning NATO rifle (the FN FAL).
In the end, the US adopted the POS M14 rifle (shortest serving US service rifle) and 308 Win cartridge (too much recoil).
Anyone with some combat experience will tell you that going head to head with an M14 (or a FN FAL) against an AK47 is suicide. (The British learned that in Northern Ireland the hard way).
The saddest part is that the problem is known and the solutions are clear but nothing will be done unless NATO starts losing a major land war!
Alex
Heavier bullets make the 5.56 pull its weight. When loaded to 5.56 pressures, the 77 grain bullets do just fine. Look at the studies done with 100 frain bullets in 5.56, they are impressive by anyone's standards, even mine, and I trained on the FNC1 and love the .308. I load 69 grain pills in my 5.56 loads as I have noticed a real improvement in terminal performance on game - especially at any distance.
As it is shown in the CAFSAC, anything beyond 300m is a crapshoot when shooting is not the only thing to worry about. It is not uncommon to see zero hit in targets (by either rifles or LMGs) beyond 300m in the simplified section attack competition. These are done by shooters from regular formations who have at least some shooting practices. This is probably the most objective because no can say that he/she hit the target but it did not go down. Paper targets do not lie.
Even at 200m, a lot of people cannot shoot perfectly when under a bit of stress at high heart rate. It is not uncommon to see misses at 200m plate match. This is shooting done in prone at 10X10 steel plates with 3.4X sight.
Bigger bullets and bigger guns are not going to help. Delivering bullets to the targets is already hard enough.
99% user and 1% equipment? Good equipment matters, otherwise JTF2 could get by with cheap bolt action single shot 22s.
Both user AND equip need to be of quality to be effective.
Ll
Maybe....but somebody is hitting somebody at those distances in every war including Afghanistan.
A role reversal ;
If u were clearing a compound of beastly taliban, would u want them shooting back at you with 125 grain 7.62 x 39, or 62 grain 5.56?
Look how dangerous a belt fed 7.62 x 54 has been for our troops. There are an awful lot of dead and wounded people - somebody is hitting somebody.
The Falklands conflict saw a face-off of main battle rifles chambered in 7.62 x 51. Aimed fire with a full-powered cartridge hit a awful lot of guys.
Maybe....but somebody is hitting somebody at those distances in every war including Afghanistan.
A role reversal ;
If u were clearing a compound of beastly taliban, would u want them shooting back at you with 125 grain 7.62 x 39, or 62 grain 5.56?
Look how dangerous a belt fed 7.62 x 54 has been for our troops. There are an awful lot of dead and wounded people - somebody is hitting somebody.
The Falklands conflict saw a face-off of main battle rifles chambered in 7.62 x 51. Aimed fire with a full-powered cartridge hit a awful lot of guys.
Last edited:
This very tough to believe since it goes against recent combat experience.
Even IDF had big problems with scoped equipped AK47 at medium range.
The problem seems to be that a determined enemy will exploit any limitations in opposing equipment, tactics or rules of engagement.
Why are US SF using match 5.56 ammo and Army and Marines use 7.62 DMR when they already have 5.56 DMR?
For those who never fired at long range, any good rifleman can hit a target at 600 yards with a service 7.62 rifle.
I don't see how it would be different for an opposing force.
Except for the Swiss Army and the USMC, very few organizations care about marksmanship.
By the way, almost 100% of Swiss infantry will hit a target at 300m!
Alex
As per Alex ↑ look how many nato soldiers are being hit by enemy with an intermediate cartridge chambered rifle with a rudimentary scope. If they are hitting us, then surely our better trained soldiers should be more capable of hitting them back. And they are. Unfortunately it is often with a .22 caliber rather then a 30. We are truly in a caliber-induced malaise.
What percentage of hits with a 77 grain 5.56 were ineffective...but would have been effective had they been with a 7.62?
What percentage of infantrymen are good enough at estimating range to make use of longer range rifles?
It's pretty easy to hit 600m targets at known distances and which are making no effort not to be shot.
That is not what we ask infantry to do.
Caliber is the least of our concerns.
What percentage of infantrymen are good enough at estimating range to make use of longer range rifles?
It's pretty easy to hit 600m targets at known distances and which are making no effort not to be shot.
That is not what we ask infantry to do.
Caliber is the least of our concerns.
Because most soldiers can't shoot very well.
I agree this is a training issue. It's also the issue we should be solving, rather than worrying about caliber.
Whether there were hits at distance in the FI war is totally irrelevant to this discussion. There are hits at distance today with 5.56.
The only question is the one I asked above..."what percentage of hits with 5.56 were ineffective, that would have been effective with 7.62?"
What percentage do you believe that to be?
Ease up on the C.O.D.
It doesn't matter what caliber. If you don't hit, you don't kill.
Forget these boutique calibers you mention. These are promoted by varies entities just to sell product. $$$$$$$$$$$$
If any one hasn't noticed, there is a reason for soldiers lining up 100M apart and launching volleys at each other 200 years ago.
Just because it's 2013 , it does not mean we can hit any better. Sure there are red dots and low mag. scopes.. They help, but not much past 300M.
We are still limited by skill, equipment and caliber.
Unless we start shooting lasers, bullets will be inherently inaccurate.
- Location
- Western Canada
If I were to be making the decision (with slightly more knowledge than most politicians that do make these decisions), I say .300BLK with thse drop-in piston kits. No need for new guns/systems, minimal additional training (for anybody with M16/M4/C7/C8/etc), same mags, and (apparently) better stopping power.
Ok, I'll bite.....50%......75% lol
I only mention the FI conflict as you, and others, seem to infer that larger calibers will adversely affect accuracy in combat engagements whereas that conflict shows otherwise.
Our current enemy in GWOT are almost exclusively using a .30 caliber cartridge.......and.....if their sorry a$$es and poorer marksmanship are (sadly) hitting our guys and causing 30 caliber trauma, then CALIBER does matter somewhat.
We have them beat on weapon and user accuracy, as well as ammo load and platform modularity; However, these simple, backward albeit brutal jihadists have us beat in the area of center mass lethality and 30 cal extremity damage.
Really?
"What was the hit percentage in FI and how does it compare to the hit percentage in GWOT?" (he asked facetiously, knowing no intelligent answer would be forthcoming).
I don't even know why I'm in this thread. If there's one thing I hate doing, it's discussing this kind of stuff with people who clearly have no data on the subject.
My goodness, I don't know where to begin.
We are limited by skill? Better training
We are limited by equipment? Better RnD and procurement.
We are limited by caliber? Choose one that really serves the needs of the soldier.
Suggesting that we are no better off then we were with 200 years ago with muskets is funny. However, I would like to just point out that you do not really believe that.
"if you don't hit, you don't kill." aaaahhhhhh? Ok. But we are talking about hitting here. And hitting with a .22 is not the same as hitting with a 50BMG.
"reddots and scopes don't help much past 300?" Perfect, because that is the range we are really talking about.
I was being colourful and discussing the fight in Afghanistan, but since you have taken the time to judge me, tell me what aspect of Taliban rule you find forward-thinking?
Are they not enforcing a very simple way of living on the populace? ie: no sports, music, etc
And how would you describe their treatment of women in recent years?
Bigot? Since I see the Taliban as a brutal and dangerous regime?
Go off and find another thread then. Embarrassing? Political correctness to blindness - that's embarrassing.
How in the hell would any of us here have that data? You are free to go.
- Status
