CQB rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.
heavenIsAlie

heavenIsAlie

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Location
Abbotsford
i see lots of 10"-11.5" AR's being built, i was just curious if military forces use them for CQB (remember someone talking about the barrel being to short for the .223 round to kill effectively), if they dont then what do they use?
 
We use the C8 with the 16 inch barrel or the C7a2 with the 20 inch barrel. The higher speed, lower drag guys have the shorties, with the cans. Barrel length really has nothing to do with stopping ability. It will effect muzzle velocity, but at those short ranges, a hit in the right place will stop someone. We are shooting 5.56mm fmj stuff too, not .223.
Hoddie
 
heavenIsAlie said:
didnt figure it mattered much at close quarters but im not expert and 5.56 ballistics seems to be very analyzed
Click to expand...

From what I've read, out of an 11.5" barrel, the 55gr FMJ round will still tumble and fragment properly out to about 50 meters.

Most of the guys that Hoddie was mentioning also have access to ammunition that is especially well suited to short barrels. Apparently with a 1:7 barrel, you can push bullet weights up ove 70 grains, and there are some bullets in this weight class that perform very well. Hornady and Black Hills are making some rounds that fall in this category.

Oh....and BTW....I'm with Ian_in_vic on this one. All of our folks in the sandbox qualify as high speed and low drag.
 
Years ago, I read an article in a military journal dealing with the use of M16A1 rifles by British special forces in the Malvina Island conflict. The journal stated that at close range, the 5.56 M193 round was far inferior in stopping power to the 9MM fired from a Sterling. The claim was the 5.56 did not tumble at close range, and passed through the target leaving pin-prick holes.

As well, the M16A1 was difficult to use in room clearing scenarios because the recoil was too great, cyclic rate was too high, and busts could not be controlled as well as with the Sterling. The author lamented the demise of the Sterling SMG in favor of the ubiquitous assault rifle. I have heard Peter Kokalis from Soldier of Fortune magazine also state that nothing beats an SMG for house clearing, and the Sterling in particular.

Seems to me that the ideal CQB weapon is an SMG. But since the advent of body armor, pistols bullets cannot be relied upon to settle an argument. My last review of the literature indicated that the utility of the SS109 round was found chiefly in its ability to defeat many types of body armor. Maybe that is why short assault rifles prevail today. Too bad that these rifles appear to be unable to provide a satisfactory replacement to the older weapon in this scenario. Maybe new technology is the solution.

BB
 
Bigbill said:
Years ago, I read an article in a military journal dealing with the use of M16A1 rifles by British special forces in the Malvina Island conflict. The journal stated that at close range, the 5.56 M193 round was far inferior in stopping power to the 9MM fired from a Sterling. The claim was the 5.56 did not tumble at close range, and passed through the target leaving pin-prick holes.

As well, the M16A1 was difficult to use in room clearing scenarios because the recoil was too great, cyclic rate was too high, and busts could not be controlled as well as with the Sterling. The author lamented the demise of the Sterling SMG in favor of the ubiquitous assault rifle. I have heard Peter Kokalis from Soldier of Fortune magazine also state that nothing beats an SMG for house clearing, and the Sterling in particular.

Seems to me that the ideal CQB weapon is an SMG. But since the advent of body armor, pistols bullets cannot be relied upon to settle an argument. My last review of the literature indicated that the utility of the SS109 round was found chiefly in its ability to defeat many types of body armor. Maybe that is why short assault rifles prevail today. Too bad that these rifles appear to be unable to provide a satisfactory replacement to the older weapon in this scenario. Maybe new technology is the solution.

BB
Click to expand...

:jerkit:Sounds like a load of hot #### to me. The only thign that woudl have completed the old wives tales compiled above would be an antecdote of a guy getting shot in the shoulder with the bullet exiting his opposite ankle.

Especially at CQB distances the round fragments, it's not designed to tumble. As the bullet loses velocity of course it will cease to have the ability to fragment and will only punch 5.56 holes.

If someone can't handle the 'recoil' of a M16 they need to hit the gym or the ice cream stand at the DFAC to put on some weight.

Sterlings are obsolete garbage. I wouldn't want to be in a stack with dudes behind me carrying semi-reliable open bolt weapons.

CQB length rifles are a tool in the toolbox. They're not ideal for every use, but they do have thier place...CQB, vehicle work, low pro operations, etc.
 
Hmmmm.....

I've never fired a Sterling, but I've certainly put a fair number of rounds through an AR platform on full auto. I would not categorize it as having much in the way of recoil or as being difficult to control.

To be honest with you, very few people that I've met would describe the recoil of an AR in 5.56 as being an issue.
 
Put Away Your Assault Rifle, The Pen Awaits

Big_Red said:
:jerkit:Sounds like a load of hot s**t to me. The only thign that woudl have completed the old wives tales compiled above would be an antecdote of a guy getting shot in the shoulder with the bullet exiting his opposite ankle.

Especially at CQB distances the round fragments, it's not designed to tumble. As the bullet loses velocity of course it will cease to have the ability to fragment and will only punch 5.56 holes.

If someone can't handle the 'recoil' of a M16 they need to hit the gym or the ice cream stand at the DFAC to put on some weight.

Sterlings are obsolete garbage. I wouldn't want to be in a stack with dudes behind me carrying semi-reliable open bolt weapons.

CQB length rifles are a tool in the toolbox. They're not ideal for every use, but they do have thier place...CQB, vehicle work, low pro operations, etc.
Click to expand...

Well said. You should apply to write for Small Arms Review. Peter Kokalis is an idiot and you can take his job. You could also paste your interesting jerk-off symbols along with your articles on small arms development. It will put you in solid with your target audience. That is to say, Rambo wannabe clowns, who never grew out of their GI Joe days.

Thanks again for sparing time away from your combat missions in Iraq. Now you can go back to pulling your thing. That is one matter I am sure you are expert in.

BB
 
PM inbound Bigbill, no reason to insult people just cause you are wrong.

Big Red pasted factual info - based upon both gel data from the FBI and US mil - and actual shootings.
 
KevinB said:
PM inbound Bigbill, no reason to insult people just cause you are wrong.

Big Red pasted factual info - based upon both gel data from the FBI and US mil - and actual shootings.
Click to expand...

Your point on my dialogue may be well founded. But the comments I listed are those of Peter C. Kokalis and an unamed military journal I read some years ago. I do no know if the journal was well founded or otherwise. I did not warranty the information I recounted.

But Kokalis favoured the Sterling SMG. He is a formed featured writer for Soldier of Fortune and Small Arms Review. He lauded the Sterling and claimed the assault rifle was inferior in close quarters work, because bursts of pistol ammo are easier to control and hit with.

Tell me something, did I receive an infraction because of the insulting tone of my comment, or because I disagreed with your friend?

BB
 
Bigbill said:
Well said. You should apply to write for Small Arms Review. Peter Kokalis is an idiot and you can take his job. You could also paste your interesting jerk-off symbols along with your articles on small arms development. It will put you in solid with your target audience. That is to say, Rambo wannabe clowns, who never grew out of their GI Joe days.

BB
Click to expand...

Do you realize how ridiculous your position is?

Your telling somebody that has used a short rifle on a DAILY basis for YEARS in a war that they are wrong because of some SOF article a decade ago.

Dude, the target audience for gun rags are exactly what you are describing above. I'm just a person on the internet conveying his personal experience on tools I've actually used.

(and while I haven't done CQB with a Sterling, I do own three here, including one suppressed model)

Bigbill said:
Thanks again for sparing time away from your combat missions in Iraq. Now you can go back to pulling your thing. That is one matter I am sure you are expert in.

BB
Click to expand...

No problem, anything to keep the populace informed. I'll admit it's tough trying to fit internet arguments into my busy schedule of hosting BBQs, working out, creeping on nurses, and smoking Cohibas lit with hundred dollar bills.:pirate:
 
Last edited:
A year or so ago I read a presentation of a gentleman from Ordnance Engineering Directorate at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane Indiana on the modifications required to mount a 10.3" barrel on an M4A1 Carbine. They were
1) Gas Port Expanded from 0.062 to 0.070 inches;

2) Standard 4 coil extractor spring replaced with 5 coil COTS spring;

3) Flash hider replaced with M4QD flash hider

4) Gas rings replaced with COTS 1 piece rings at 5,000 rds;

All ammunition used was standard issues US military loads and personally I prefer the C1 SMG. Mainly because I carried it for 3 years early in my career. Was an interesting PDF file.
 
Last edited:
The great debate continues ....
opinions based on REALITY VS opinions from the Mall.

Opinions are just like A$$HOLES ....
every body is entitled to have one.
But the opinions I personally respect, are the ones based on CURRENT EXPERIENCE ...
not what someone read in SOF, or saw on the latest fad posting on their favorite Ninja website.

The closest I get to "combat shooting" these days is that my back yard is Heals Range. I hear the boys sighting in for their "reality testing" sessions in the sandbox, and while I may not support my government's foreign policy [ echos of Bush ], I DO support all the people out there on the two way ranges, who put themselves in harms way for what they believe in. They are earning their opinions in the harshest way possible ... so l will listen carefully to them when they express their opinions.

PS: just as a historical note, I once was a contributing editor to SURVIVE maagazine?? SO WHAT?? Does that make my opinion more valid than any one elses?? And I have personally sent several thousand round down range through the Sten and the Sterling?? So which impresses you more??

the answer should be NEITHER ...
if you want the opinion that is valid for yourself, then you should go out and earn it yourself, rather than reading about it ... in SOF or on the gun sites.

Like I sometimes say in my sign off,
"FREE Personal opinions you get from the internet, are often worth a lot less than what you paid for them ... and may cost you a lot more than you can afford, if you take them too seriously."

But some opinions may be worth a LOT more than others.
And this is what makes the internet so interesting ...
how do you decide which is which?
EH?
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Back on topic, short barrelled rifles are a load of fun to shot - regardless its terminal effect on Tofu or jello. That's the reason there are so many around.
 
Bigbill said:
Thanks again for sparing time away from your combat missions in Iraq. Now you can go back to pulling your thing. That is one matter I am sure you are expert in.
BB
Click to expand...

Evidence shows that 9mm has been rendered nearly obsolete as a princepal CQB platform by every NATO country that I know of. The 'high speed' folks could certainly have 9mm if they so wished, yet basically all have decided to go with rifle type ammunition platforms (556/6.8/etc).

This choice of real live door kickers in real live war zones (not domestic counter terror ops) would seem to be evidence enough that the writer/article you quote is either misguided in his beliefs (5.56 recoil issues), or the article is old enough to have been rendered obsolete (like the Stirling).

If you're here to advance your own and the collective knowledge, why get all poopy-pants and defensive and start throwing insults when someone with a great deal of first hand knowledge and experience (Big_Red) offers you better info than you're operating with (an old SOF article)?

I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
From my personal experience on the one-way range, I also have a hard time believing that the AR15 variants have too much recoil. There's something really fishy about that claim. My ARs are far and above the tamest recoiling centre-fire military deployed firearms I own. Heck, I just got my hands on a LE6920, and you can hardly tell it recoils at all.
 
greentips said:
Back on topic, short barrelled rifles are a load of fun to shot - regardless its terminal effect on Tofu or jello. That's the reason there are so many around.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. The 10.3" platform, Oakleys and an Arcteryx jacket are standard issue when on Op Starbucks.:cool: Leave the door kicking to the MLDs, I just wanna have fun and look kewl. :evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom