Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan

I'm glad I read through this thread. Now I understand why Reaper is in such a bad mood all the time.:D

A) He has to read and re-read threads like this.
B) He has to deal with guys like angrysoldier
C) He got shot in the freakin' leg....:eek:

PS. Much respect for your continued service Reaper.:cheers:
 
A lot of the bad guys in Mogadishu were chewing khat. That stuff will pump you up. It may provide an explanation, at least in part, to bad guys brushing off 5.56 hits.

I can't see someone continuing the fight after taking a 5.56 through the manubrium.

Much respect to Reaper. :D
 
Better under it than in it
Click to expand...

:eek:, not sure how I should read this. I though the army had a don't ask don't tell policy. :p

How about we address the problem from another angle, arguments for or against the 5.56 aside.

For those with experience given the choice in a perfect world, which would you prefer to take to battle as a general purpose cartridge if things could be done over again?

7.62x51 / 5.56 / 6.8SPC / 6.5 Grendel / 7.62x39
 
I'm glad I read through this thread. Now I understand why Reaper is in such a bad mood all the time.
Click to expand...

naw in a certain base its issued :D

aside from those festivities,this is sounding like the old stopping power argument.

In my limited view I would rather have the weapons system i have more experience on. but hey i'm a f_cking WOG and shoot paper.

I agree with Reaper. its shot placement. I also have a member of my extended family who took 4 7.62x39 in Iraq and is just getting the halo off his leg next month he was lucky. and Reaper if you didn't have have one your extremely lucky.

two quotes from other military CGNers worth repeating.

I also read greentips quote and agree as well

"the U.S. is never satisfied with the cartridge they have"

"you forget the C7 was not made for marksman and snipers, it was made to throw in the hands of some dummy who voted liberal"

I have an adolescent nostalgic fancy of the FN as well i would love to be able to own one, but the weapon system was done sorry guys they are not going to re issue them from war stocks and pull out the last Arrow and save Canada.:D

I have heard the myth in my wogginess circles that the FN was an awesome sniper rifle ..........and in my wogginess experience .......i would say no.

I also know two people who know in participated in trials for the c7 and the two i know hated it but ended up liking it.
 
Last edited:
500m

Issue one or two 16" 7.62mm SR-25 Carbines with Leupold 1.1-8x scope and Mk318 Mod0 ammo
CQBSS1sredit.jpg


0-800m


I am a big fan of 5.56mm - it will work out past 500m on unarmored targets - but at that range has #### for penetration of intervening barriers.

Years ago in Croatia a R22eR CSM shot a SVD armed ####### using his C7A1 range was in excess of 800m

Its the singer not the song.
 
As I understand, there were 28,000 C1's chopped up in Halifax. (Or thereabouts.)

Some were brand new, still in the cosmolene/plastic. The plastic seals were broken by slashing the plastic, then tossing the rifle towards the pile while holding the bag to separate the two.

However.

The far greater majority of the rifles were not properly P&P'd. (Packaged and Preserved.)

They were packed for 1 year of storage with the anticipation that when they got to the depot, they'd be properly P&P'd for long-term storage.

That long-term P&P'ing didn't happen.

So, fast forward by 20 years, and start opening up boxes that had rifles in them that are rusty, pitted, and consider that the entire spare parts inventory had been cleared out in the interm, not to mention that in the intervening 20 years, the corporate knowledge of the rifles has passed to the level of it basically only being guys at the SGT/WO level that remember them.

What makes you think that they belong back on a modern battlefield considering those factors?

Personally, I own 4 FN's, and love 'em to pieces, but the C-7 and AR platform is better to shoot with (IMO) and I never shot as well with the FN as I have with the C-7.

Ymmv, but we're better off with the rifles we have. Are they ideal for every situation? Probably not, but they're better than clapped out rusted up rifles that no-one who'd need to carry one would remember how to use.

(Oh, and jacking up reaper...>TOOO FUNNY!!!!)

NS
 
rdelliott said:
All at sub-100-meter ranges thought. The article's talking about half-kilometer ranges.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. Everything has it's purpose. There should be a variety of weapons issued in the army for different circumstances.
My wife's classmate lives in Israel. It's just his luck or lack of it that for the past 15 yrs. he has been called to participate in every major incursion into Gaza or West Bank (mostly West Bank though). When he was here on vacation, I asked him just two questions. One was about the perceived lack of lethality of 5.56 and another one about his opinion on m16 vs. Galil. He said that he never had a problem with making a lethal shot from his issued M4 and most of the guys in his unit prefer M4 over Galil due to weight. He said that after carrying it for few days you really start noticing the difference.
 
rdelliott said:
All at sub-100-meter ranges thought. The article's talking about half-kilometer ranges.
Click to expand...



The article misses the main point, a rifleman is there to provide security for support weapons, and to close with and kill the enemy at close range. There is no need for an Infantryman's weapon to engage beyond 300 meters,as beyond that is the engagement band of support weapons and supporting arms (GPMG,HMG,Mortars,Artillery,etc).
 
I think(and this is just me) that part of the reason why ordinary riflemen seem to think that the weapon is not effective beyond 300m is because that's what they've been told.And reinforcing that is the fact that we are fighting a bunch of basically(for the most part) untrained rable.
I'd be curious to know how Reaper and Kevin feel about engaging a trained (say Rusky or Chinese) army with support weapons at those distances?Say between 300m to 500m.
Wasn't it common back in the day(army against army) to send in a probing patrol to hopefully locate the section weapons,then back off and mortar or arty the #### out of them before an attack?
What would be the point of disclosing those weapons at 300m,400m, 500m or even 600m, when your riflemen(if trained properly and confident they can make hits)can deal with those issues themselves with well aimed shots?
I feel that at some point we are going to end up fighting someone who actually has training and this 300m and out thing is going to be a problem.
 
Reaper said:
The article misses the main point, a rifleman is there to provide security for support weapons, and to close with and kill the enemy at close range. There is no need for an Infantryman's weapon to engage beyond 300 meters,as beyond that is the engagement band of support weapons and supporting arms (GPMG,HMG,Mortars,Artillery,etc).
Click to expand...

I will disagree with my friend here.

Further and further into Counter Insurgency warfare we notice the need to lengthen the engagement range of the Section/Squad in precision firepower. We also see the dispersement of small elements who cannot all have immediate firepower assets (both removed from integral due to weight - or support due to availability and or restrictions on usage.)

I truly believe with the C7 and C8 the section can and does have the ability to direct fire accurately out to open point targets at 400m. However I beleive the section/squad bubble needs to be at least 600m for point targets.

The Brits have agreed and adopted the LMT L129A1 16" 7.62mm gun, and the US Military has a DMR concept (though a very flawed and disjointed DMR implementation).
 
Gatehouse said:
No military experience and not much experience with evil scary black guns....

But i did shoot a bear with a .223, which I think is pretty similar in performance to this "5.56" cartridge I keep hearing about.

The bear fell down and died.....One shot, about 200 yards.

It had a hole through both of lungs.

I expect if you put holes through the lungs of humans, they will die to, but I've never shot a human, although when you skin a bear it does look freakishly like a human with no skin.:eek:

I think it's called shot placement.:p
Click to expand...

No sh*t....Who knew!!!;):D

TDC
 
KevinB said:
I will disagree with my friend here.

Further and further into Counter Insurgency warfare we notice the need to lengthen the engagement range of the Section/Squad in precision firepower. We also see the dispersement of small elements who cannot all have immediate firepower assets (both removed from integral due to weight - or support due to availability and or restrictions on usage.)

I truly believe with the C7 and C8 the section can and does have the ability to direct fire accurately out to open point targets at 400m. However I beleive the section/squad bubble needs to be at least 600m for point targets.

The Brits have agreed and adopted the LMT L129A1 16" 7.62mm gun, and the US Military has a DMR concept (though a very flawed and disjointed DMR implementation).
Click to expand...

Add to that the 338LM sniper rifles, My friend in the Brit LI tells me that his snipers made good use of the new AI sniper rifles in Afganistan, and they are looking forward to getting new L129.

But that is a different type of warfare.

Now in an all out slugfest with trained armies going toe to toe its going to be messy and close with lots of heavies rolling around blowing big holes in things, like APC's. Add to that the Airforce bombing anything that moves :rolleyes: and the modern battlefield is not very infantry friendly. Once the heavy slugging is done then the infantry is able to hold the ground. Just not much you can do when your inside a LAV trying to keep up with tanks. :D
 
KevinB said:
I will disagree with my friend here.

Further and further into Counter Insurgency warfare we notice the need to lengthen the engagement range of the Section/Squad in precision firepower. We also see the dispersement of small elements who cannot all have immediate firepower assets (both removed from integral due to weight - or support due to availability and or restrictions on usage.)

I truly believe with the C7 and C8 the section can and does have the ability to direct fire accurately out to open point targets at 400m. However I beleive the section/squad bubble needs to be at least 600m for point targets.

The Brits have agreed and adopted the LMT L129A1 16" 7.62mm gun, and the US Military has a DMR concept (though a very flawed and disjointed DMR implementation).
Click to expand...


I see your point,but....
The Canadian experiment with DMR has been a failure IMHO a lack of a dedicted training program and employment doctrine has yet to be established, nor has a capable platform been sourced. It is a shame as it could be a force multiplier at the lowest level.
We operate very diferently from the Brits, we make use of supporting arms and weapons when ever possible ,from UAV to Leopard II tanks.
The Infantry Section engages at the maximum distance it can identify the target or source of fire, bringing all weapons to bear, not just rifle fire. The C7/8 and C9 can engage at long range but not as effectively as the dedicated support weapons. WE are not the US Mil or the Brits our doctrine is different wrt this theatre of operation, not to say us or them are not effective, we just punch with more weight given the situation in our piece of the pie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom