Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan
- Thread starter rdelliott
- Start date
And then in the next war we will be sure someone gonna write a report telling everyone how sucky it is the round could not penetrate the flakjacket at 300. and then someone gonna complain that they need a light and fast calibre in close range engagement so they can smash up ceramic plates......
This will never end - because everything is a compromise of another.
The problem is not the calibre or the rifle itself - it is organization structure and management process. You have to see the problem, propose a solution and implement the solution - and then guage the performance. The problem is that the process is always perceived to be too slow in the military (and in the government, in general), and the lack ofagility to deal with fast emerging issues.
The challenge is that - knowing every conflict will be different, how does the military create agility and flexibility in dealing with emerging issues efficiently and effectivley without letting cost run out of control.
This will never end - because everything is a compromise of another.
The problem is not the calibre or the rifle itself - it is organization structure and management process. You have to see the problem, propose a solution and implement the solution - and then guage the performance. The problem is that the process is always perceived to be too slow in the military (and in the government, in general), and the lack ofagility to deal with fast emerging issues.
The challenge is that - knowing every conflict will be different, how does the military create agility and flexibility in dealing with emerging issues efficiently and effectivley without letting cost run out of control.
Last edited:
Nope and incorrect.
USMC is issuing Barrier Blind (SODT) ammo in Afghan and Iraq.
C77/M855 was good ammo at the time it was adopted, however research in the field has created better bullets.
Years ago HSM was loading the AA53 77gr OTM in Orange Boxes for competition.
Enter 9/11 and the ammo was used operationally, BlackHills picked up the contract and bullet setback was noticed in the Mk262 Mod0.
Mod1 was designed with a cannelure to get a better case mouth seal to stop bullet setback, it has a minor degredation on accuracy (still sub-MOA) and also increase terminal effectiveness.
However it was a conventional OTM, and the SMK is not the best performer in short barrels.
Enter various loading for SOCOM.
The BlackHills 70gr "BROWN TIP" Optimized 5.56mm was standardized, in certain communties for vertain ammunition.
However the USMC had intiated a RFI for a Barrier Blind ammo - in seeing the problems with the Mk262 on intervening barriers and vehicles.
Crane has picked up on the Barrier Blind ammo and it is now being fielded.
5.56mm works.
7.62mm still has a role however, as it is simply a bigger and better performing round (projectiles being equal).
Yes 6.8 SPC does offer advantages, as does 6x35 in some situations and various other cartridges.
There is a push in the Army and USMC to adopt the SOF Arms Room concept. A concept that is very valid (different uppers that can be chosen for mission upon need).
However buying every soldier 3 uppers to use on a host lower is expensive as is maintaining them.
Frankly a 10-12" CQBR, a 14.5-16" GP, and a 18-20" SPR upper and the accompanying optics would give soldiers a great deal of capability. Adding a 16" and 20" 7.62mm interchangeable platform would be a big boost too (1-2 per section/squad).
The 6.5 and 6.8 proponets often miss the necessity of having the Section/Squad Beltfeds in the same caliber...
Until FN or someone else rolls out a beltfed LMG in those cartridges then its all blowing smoke.
Taking the Arms Room concept to a futher level.
8" 6x35 Knight's upper
12.5" 6.8 SPC upper
16.5" 6.8 SPC upper
common lower
LMG in 6.8
Micro LMG in 6x35
16" 7.62 NATO
20" upper for above
LMG in 7.62mm NATO
In a perfect world with infinite funding...
and a perfect logisitical train that never has availability or wrong ammo shipped...
Until that day arises, which I can never see happening, then it will be a continual argument.
And even if it did, some armchair asshat will be arguing that the guy on the ground either picked the wrong combo, or should have something esle.........
Sigh.
You sure this wasn't 300m?It's a B face.500m is shot on an A face.
IIRC in Calgary they shoot the B throughout the course, when I was there we found it easier than repasting the targets as we had limited frames.
Sight Radius these days is a red-herring as everyone uses optics.
The sight radius on an M4 or C8SFW is 14.5" while the sight radius on the M16/C7 series is 20" (weird huh I only measured those a week ago and was like huh... same as bbl length). But with optics its not an issue.
I've shot the 900m with an M4 (LE6921) and ACOG out in Cgy, and aiming up a Pine Tree behind the butts, I was able to get consistant hits on the 4x4 screen using Mk262.
But it would have been easier with a quadrant sight I needed that much elevation.
Sight Radius these days is a red-herring as everyone uses optics.
The sight radius on an M4 or C8SFW is 14.5" while the sight radius on the M16/C7 series is 20" (weird huh I only measured those a week ago and was like huh... same as bbl length). But with optics its not an issue.
I've shot the 900m with an M4 (LE6921) and ACOG out in Cgy, and aiming up a Pine Tree behind the butts, I was able to get consistant hits on the 4x4 screen using Mk262.
But it would have been easier with a quadrant sight I needed that much elevation.
On the upside for the ar, no problem getting headshots with good optics out to 300m. I love how little drop this caliber has when used in it's appropriate ranges. Freaken' laser beam! Train and equip one or two more long range boys and girls in each squad, and I think we're good. A moving, shooting target, partially obscured is going to be tricky to hit period. Regardless of the caliber, if you hit him, good shot. Chances are he'll be a lot less frisky, be it 5.56, 6.5 grendal, 6.8 spec, 7.62 or fist sized rock.
On a static target, under ideal conditions.
The head moves on its own axis, ontop of a torso that has its own range of motion, and on a lower body that can move.
There are many things in life that cannot be resolved simply by experience. In most fields, one will find divergent views amongst a gathering of experts. Nonetheless, I think that some common themes are that few will argue that shot placement is not the critical factor. Nonetheless, there are some legitimate issues with 5.56mm performance (yes, beyond soldiers firing over the head etc...). Measuring terminal effect is a tricky science. Until recently, most military focus has been on penetration and retained energy at various distances (i.e. x joules to incapacitate).
The article raises a number of important points. On the issue of the requirement to increase the range of the rifleman, both US and UK observers have identified this as a critical requirement. This will arguably take a mix of training and equipment, which the author recommends (although some of his specific recommendations are debatable).
Although most modern armies employ a combined arms approach, the reliance on individual rifleman to effectively engage targets does not run counter to doctrine. As the author notes, if only support weapons were in play for distant targets it would result in employment of only 19% of the weapons in a company.
Often we look at machineguns and somewhat schizophrenically claim that they are the long-range killing weapons and on the other hand justify lack of hits with the claim that they are area weapons. Part of this is operator skill, but some of it is the servicability of the weapon (read disposable machineguns years past their prime).
When one considers artillery, fast air and aviation, one must also consider all the drawbacks of using these resources. Sometimes they are simply unavailable. This is easy to forget when you operate in a theatre and era where resources abound. Rewind to Kandahar in 2006. Cdn operations there were significantly more dispersed. Even when resources such as air are available, there may be competition for the resource. Of course, the more potent the firepower, the more coordination the controlling agency needs to exercise. Sometimes this means just figuring out where all the friendlies are. More potent support weapons often have greater potential for collateral damage. This also translates into risk for friendly forces. If the strategic corporal can solve it sooner with a few well placed rifle shots, we will all be better off.
Where I think the author really falls short is in respect of some of his specific recommendations on optics etc.. I would be interested on Kev's take, since he has experience with most of the optics discussed.
The article raises a number of important points. On the issue of the requirement to increase the range of the rifleman, both US and UK observers have identified this as a critical requirement. This will arguably take a mix of training and equipment, which the author recommends (although some of his specific recommendations are debatable).
Although most modern armies employ a combined arms approach, the reliance on individual rifleman to effectively engage targets does not run counter to doctrine. As the author notes, if only support weapons were in play for distant targets it would result in employment of only 19% of the weapons in a company.
Often we look at machineguns and somewhat schizophrenically claim that they are the long-range killing weapons and on the other hand justify lack of hits with the claim that they are area weapons. Part of this is operator skill, but some of it is the servicability of the weapon (read disposable machineguns years past their prime).
When one considers artillery, fast air and aviation, one must also consider all the drawbacks of using these resources. Sometimes they are simply unavailable. This is easy to forget when you operate in a theatre and era where resources abound. Rewind to Kandahar in 2006. Cdn operations there were significantly more dispersed. Even when resources such as air are available, there may be competition for the resource. Of course, the more potent the firepower, the more coordination the controlling agency needs to exercise. Sometimes this means just figuring out where all the friendlies are. More potent support weapons often have greater potential for collateral damage. This also translates into risk for friendly forces. If the strategic corporal can solve it sooner with a few well placed rifle shots, we will all be better off.
Where I think the author really falls short is in respect of some of his specific recommendations on optics etc.. I would be interested on Kev's take, since he has experience with most of the optics discussed.
tophat13 -- good to have you around sir.
Optics: its a #####
Ideally you'd have a Smart Scope that would be from 1x-20x in 5x "clicks" of a throw lever type setup. Size of a ACOG weight of T-1 Aimpoint. Parallex Free and a holographic reticle that was generous to the viewing cone.
Sorry I've been in future planning meeting mode recently...
Right now as much as it pains me to say, I would use the mix of the C79A2 and EOTECH's.
I've seen a lot of issues with ACOG's of late and while I think Aimpoints are a better sight than the EO, the CF is so heavliy invested in both that its going to be impossible to transition to a new optic until a new weapon is selected.
I've been trying to convince Leupold to make a 1.1-4x scaled down version of their new 1.1-8x CQBSS Recce Rifle Scope.
In Kevin's world - if you can't have the Arms Room approach.
1) Training
2) New 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds
More to follow
Optics: its a #####
Ideally you'd have a Smart Scope that would be from 1x-20x in 5x "clicks" of a throw lever type setup. Size of a ACOG weight of T-1 Aimpoint. Parallex Free and a holographic reticle that was generous to the viewing cone.
Sorry I've been in future planning meeting mode recently...
Right now as much as it pains me to say, I would use the mix of the C79A2 and EOTECH's.
I've seen a lot of issues with ACOG's of late and while I think Aimpoints are a better sight than the EO, the CF is so heavliy invested in both that its going to be impossible to transition to a new optic until a new weapon is selected.
I've been trying to convince Leupold to make a 1.1-4x scaled down version of their new 1.1-8x CQBSS Recce Rifle Scope.
In Kevin's world - if you can't have the Arms Room approach.
1) Training
2) New 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds
More to follow
Perhaps the 62 grain IVI round should be made with a steel penetrater and a weaker jacket so that it can penetrate well and still fragment at its slower velocities. The difficulty would be to make the jacket weak enough to fragment at lower velocities yet strong enough to remain intact both inside the barrel and upon leaving it.
I liked having a EOtech on my C7A2/M203 with BUIS for close shooting ,but it lacked the magnification I needed and was use too.The weight was nice, just hated that i couldn't scan with it that really bugged me.Never got the chance to try a aimpoint would like to do some shooting with one.
No, but nor would I stand in front of your .22 short or CB pistol but they would not be my first choice if I was going off to Afghanistan tomorrow. I don't know much about the lethality of military rounds (although an awful lot of people seem to get killed successfully...) but my not being willing to stand in front of any bullet does not settle the argument as I would not be eager to be shot with any thank you very much...
Jeff
Putting my armchair commando hat on...500m
Issue one or two 16" 7.62mm SR-25 Carbines with Leupold 1.1-8x scope and Mk318 Mod0 ammo
Mk319mod0 is the 130 gr 7.62, Mk318 Mod0 is 62 gr 5.56 no?
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Kevin if you don't mind another question, I thought you were a big fan of the S&B Short Dot? Has that changed, or have other options bested it?
Have you tried the IOR Pitbull?
We have no FNs left. All destroyed about 3 years ago. So no we don't...
