The battle rifle and The Essence of War: an interesting discussion
- Thread starter Tengoo
- Start date
I'm old enough to remember that almost no-one had any love for the AR platform until C-17/C-68 up here and the Assault Weapons Ban in the US, which all occurred within a few short years. Before then, AR's were cheap and gathered dust on the shelves of the gun shops. AK's were much more sought after even then. "Gun geeks" didn't buy AR's. They'd buy M-14s/M1As. They'd buy an M1 Carbine as a light carbine instead of an AR any day of the week. Mini-14s were even more popular on the civvy market - if you look up the mass shootings in the 80s and early 90s, you were much more likely to see a Mini-14 as the weapon of the shooter than an AR, because they were just so much more common in civilian hands.
But the bans changed all that. All of the sudden, you needed a "special" restricted permit up here to get one, and they were largely unavailable as new manufacture items either here or in the US. It created a false shortage, which made them desirable because of their scarcity in both markets.
It wasn't until the AWB was lifted in the US (2004) that sales took off. A decade of seeing "that lucky guy who got an AR before the ban" created a ton of pent up demand. As soon as they became available again, sales sky-rocketed, and that's essentially where the entire market for the rifle came from.
It's silly. It just isn't that great a rifle. So many compromises. An under-powered, fragile, short range rifle firing a round that was designed as a ranch varminter/predator control round (coyotes and maybe the odd wolf - it earned the nickname "poodle shooter" for a reason). The rifle was never even designed as a combat rifle. It was initially designed for support troops and garrison duty - the only branch of the military that willingly adopted it was the Air Force for base security, as a direct replacement of the M1 Carbine. McNamara shoved it down the throat of the rest of the US Military as a cheap mass produced replacement for the M14, as a cost cutting means, and because it was easier to train with for a conscript army in the middle of a war with limited public support (Vietnam).
Everyone needs to get over it. If ever there was a rifle that should have been relegated to the dustbin of military history, it's the AR platform.
And yah,
- I don't care, the AR-Tards can kiss my grits.
Mauser GDog
CGN frequent flyer
To be honest, if they were non restricted, I'd pick up a heavy barrelled varminter AR in a heartbeat. Cheap ammo, modular, great varmint level accuracy out to 200 yards.
I just don't think it's an appropriate arm for infantry, and it certainly wouldn't be my "grab and run for the hills" gun if whatever apocalypse happens to be the flavor of the moment comes to pass (pro-tip: it won't come to pass)
An infantry rifle needs to be rugged and hard hitting above all other considerations. There are better platforms for this, and better calibres than 5.56/.223. The "ammo capacity" argument is misleading. The US military statistics strongly indicate that the increase in ammo carrying capacity is more than offset by the increased burn rate. The amount of rounds of 5.56 troops plow through in an engagement per enemy combatant is WAY higher than 7.62x51/.308.
As a hobby rifle, range/bull's-eye rifle, varminter, PDW style weapon for mounted troops/base security... Those roles it can fill, and fill well. As a primary infantry rifle in the mud and sand and adverse conditions that infantry soldiers find themselves in, it has a really poor track record of reliability and effectiveness. The US wasn't in A-Stan and Iraq for even a year before they started pulling every M14 they could get their hands on out of the storage grease and sending them out to the line. That alone should have sealed the fate of the AR platform as a primary infantry rifle.
Though i tend to agree with the necessity for a harder hitting round, an argument can be made that the burn rate is one of the reasons why the 5.56 is a better choice than 7.62. Yes the burn rate offsets the advantage of the amount of ammunition you can carry of either caliber, however based on combat practices and proven tactics over the last century, i'd think that was the point. Modern warfare is based around speed and mobility. What matters in that type of warfare isn't power but volume. If what you need to do is move from one position to another to outflank an enemy, than the first step is keeping the enemy's head down. Thinking from the perspective of the troops being fired upon, the size of the round making a splash around you doesn't matter. What really intimidates is rate of fire. The purpose of the modern infantryman isn't to kill enemy combatants in the fields and forests anymore. Most of their fighting takes place in villages and compounds, cities and towns. in close quarters rate of fire and ease of controllability is king. Of course combat in the open still happens, but modern doctrine is to suppress the enemy and pin them into a location to be taken out by heavier assets, again rate of fire is king.
that is the nature of modern combat: mag dump and move, mag dump and move. under such conditions you can see why a less effective round in greater numbers is acceptable for the duty. It would be wise of course for infantry platoons to perhaps have both calibers available to them. If i had a choice it would be a 50/50 ratio among the riflemen. They can be paired off into fire team partners on patrols, and redivided into assault teams and support teams when assaulting a built up area.
AlbertaSheepdog
Regular
- Location
- Western Canada
It's a change in battle philosophy. Gone are the days of trench warfare and long sieges where battle rifles en-masse would be effective. Today's wars are fought room to room, alley way to alley way. The US learned in Vietnam that a .308 or 30-06 was just too much bullet for that style of guerrilla warfare.
They do still serve a purpose don't get me wrong, but the 5.56 round had found a home in today's battlefield. This is the main reason why Russia developed their own similar cartridge.
In regards to the "durability" of the ar platform, they have made great strides In this field... But it's still no AK, no argument there. Find me an AR that you can crack an egg into, run through 100 rounds, pour out scrambled eggs and not have a single misfire, maybe then I will change my mind.
They do still serve a purpose don't get me wrong, but the 5.56 round had found a home in today's battlefield. This is the main reason why Russia developed their own similar cartridge.
In regards to the "durability" of the ar platform, they have made great strides In this field... But it's still no AK, no argument there. Find me an AR that you can crack an egg into, run through 100 rounds, pour out scrambled eggs and not have a single misfire, maybe then I will change my mind.
That guy is very confused and should ask the assorted Gulf/Iraq/Afghan vets if they thought they were in battles. The purpose of a battle rifle is to help those troopies to win battles. It's chambering doesn't matter. However, the M-16(that is not an AR) was adopted for political reasons and had nothing whatever to do with either .30 calibre being too much bullet. The AK is a .30 cal and the M-14 saw yeoman's service in SEA.
MacNamara just wanted a ###y new rifle and told the U.S. military they were going to use it. The U.S. then jammed the 5.56/.223 down NATO's throat just like they did with the 7.62 roughly ten years earlier. Despite the fact that the rifle wasn't wanted nor suited to jungle warfare. Jammed due to faulty ammo and not being issued with a cleaning kit.
And yep. Tell a guy he can't have something and he wants it.
MacNamara just wanted a ###y new rifle and told the U.S. military they were going to use it. The U.S. then jammed the 5.56/.223 down NATO's throat just like they did with the 7.62 roughly ten years earlier. Despite the fact that the rifle wasn't wanted nor suited to jungle warfare. Jammed due to faulty ammo and not being issued with a cleaning kit.
And yep. Tell a guy he can't have something and he wants it.
Ok, Evil_Edie and AlbertaSheepdog... I'll buy into the shoot and scoot arguments for unit tactics. But there must be a better platform/ammo combo available. Engagement distances past 300 yards are, largely, a thing of the past. So for the bulk of troops, a weapon/ammo combo that's effective past that distance is largely irrelevant. A good mix, on a unit level, is important - and that's a lesson the Soviets/Russians have taken to heart with the SVD/PSL platform, keeping a strong presence of the battle rifle as Designated Marksman weapon.
I like the concept of a 50/50 ratio, but I doubt that's realistic in a modern army. 25/75 would probably be more achievable.
So, maybe we should be arguing about what's the best option for the 75% ?
Given the following requirements, what would be your first choices, if $$ were no object? If adopted widely, the $$ issue is somewhat self resolving with mass production. It's largely a philosophical argument, for me. I'm past the age where running and gunning is a viable option (and I'll admit that's part of my bias), I'm thinking along the lines of "what would be the best option for our guys in uniform, who risk so much for us".
5.56x45 and 5.45x39 are, I would argue, not hard hitting enough. Shoot and scoot may be the objective, but I would think that if I were young, and scared, and in the thick of it, I would also want a round that stood a higher 1 shot drop probability. I get that everything is about compromises, but I think those two rounds are a couple compromises too far.
7.62x39 is a good, reliable round, but accuracy is an issue with the low velocity, especially past 200 yards, which brings it under that 300yard effective range that appears to be the general consensus as a minimum.
I guess, if we want to go there, let's build the "dream rifle" for the infantry. Sig 550 variant, G36 variant, Tavor, AK variant, etc. etc. Favorites?
Cartridge: Never shot it, but the performance of the 6.8SPC looks good on paper. 6.5 Grendel seems to be gaining some traction. What's the recoil like? Any other favourites out there?
I'll throw in my initial thoughts.
6.8SPC in either a Tavor platform (bull-pups give a nice, compact platform without sacrificing too much barrel length) or an AK platform (super reliability)...
6.5 Grendel might be better at longer ranges, but the 6.8 is better under 400yards, even at 500 yards (on paper), and works well with CQB short barrels, whereas the Grendel needs the longer barrels to stabilize.
Thoughts? I'm Ok with being proven wrong, that's how you learn.
I like the concept of a 50/50 ratio, but I doubt that's realistic in a modern army. 25/75 would probably be more achievable.
So, maybe we should be arguing about what's the best option for the 75% ?
Given the following requirements, what would be your first choices, if $$ were no object? If adopted widely, the $$ issue is somewhat self resolving with mass production. It's largely a philosophical argument, for me. I'm past the age where running and gunning is a viable option (and I'll admit that's part of my bias), I'm thinking along the lines of "what would be the best option for our guys in uniform, who risk so much for us".
5.56x45 and 5.45x39 are, I would argue, not hard hitting enough. Shoot and scoot may be the objective, but I would think that if I were young, and scared, and in the thick of it, I would also want a round that stood a higher 1 shot drop probability. I get that everything is about compromises, but I think those two rounds are a couple compromises too far.
7.62x39 is a good, reliable round, but accuracy is an issue with the low velocity, especially past 200 yards, which brings it under that 300yard effective range that appears to be the general consensus as a minimum.
I guess, if we want to go there, let's build the "dream rifle" for the infantry. Sig 550 variant, G36 variant, Tavor, AK variant, etc. etc. Favorites?
Cartridge: Never shot it, but the performance of the 6.8SPC looks good on paper. 6.5 Grendel seems to be gaining some traction. What's the recoil like? Any other favourites out there?
I'll throw in my initial thoughts.
6.8SPC in either a Tavor platform (bull-pups give a nice, compact platform without sacrificing too much barrel length) or an AK platform (super reliability)...
6.5 Grendel might be better at longer ranges, but the 6.8 is better under 400yards, even at 500 yards (on paper), and works well with CQB short barrels, whereas the Grendel needs the longer barrels to stabilize.
Thoughts? I'm Ok with being proven wrong, that's how you learn.
Best intermediate cartridge is the 8x33. Spanish did some really neat work with it and were still managing to get helmet peitration at 600m. That the cetme and fal were originally prototyped in 8x33 is interesting too.
Can't speak for the Grendel, but the 6.8 S.P.C. is an excellent & accurate hunting cartridge. Deer size game? no problem... I know this doesn't compare to warfare, but if it can put down a 220 lbs. deer at 300 yards....
IMO: I think a 115 gr. fmj is going to have a little more substance than a 69 grain .223 round.
IMO: I think a 115 gr. fmj is going to have a little more substance than a 69 grain .223 round.
- Location
- Aaaaaadmontin AB
What a pant load.
No, we don't lose wars because of the M16. We lose them because we don't let our soldiers use them the way they need to. We set up counterproductive ROE's, we let liberal and socialist scum meddle in the conflict, and we will continue to lose as long as the usual elderly hippies, militant feminists and homosexuals, and rabid socialists have a say in military affairs. Like it or not, whenever the guys shooting the M16's clash with the guys shooting AK's, the boys with the M16 almost always win.
The modern M16 has it's flaws, but it can do the job and it has proven it in any conflict you care to name.
No, we don't lose wars because of the M16. We lose them because we don't let our soldiers use them the way they need to. We set up counterproductive ROE's, we let liberal and socialist scum meddle in the conflict, and we will continue to lose as long as the usual elderly hippies, militant feminists and homosexuals, and rabid socialists have a say in military affairs. Like it or not, whenever the guys shooting the M16's clash with the guys shooting AK's, the boys with the M16 almost always win.
The modern M16 has it's flaws, but it can do the job and it has proven it in any conflict you care to name.
AlbertaSheepdog
Regular
- Location
- Western Canada
I wasn't advocating one platform or another, just giving some thoughts on to the reason for the move to 5.56 and the AR platform (aside from the political reasons, which I agree were paramount to the decision).
The issue is that there is no one perfect rifle for every scenario. Decisions are made based upon the current trend. You will never be able to get a rifle that excels at all aspects in all terrain, but you may be able to press one into duty that will do an "ok" job at everything. The US and Canada like the AR, Russia and the Chinese like the AK, and Europe cant make up their mind on anything.
The biggest factor seems to be the training involved with each platform. Spend less time worrying about what you've got, and more time worrying about how to use it. The guys who win are the guys that are trained.
The issue is that there is no one perfect rifle for every scenario. Decisions are made based upon the current trend. You will never be able to get a rifle that excels at all aspects in all terrain, but you may be able to press one into duty that will do an "ok" job at everything. The US and Canada like the AR, Russia and the Chinese like the AK, and Europe cant make up their mind on anything.
The biggest factor seems to be the training involved with each platform. Spend less time worrying about what you've got, and more time worrying about how to use it. The guys who win are the guys that are trained.
My HK MR308 has all of the positives of the AR platform, plus the added benefit of piston operation and the additional power of the .308 round. The problem is, I can't imagine being able to hold on target in full auto.
If I had to pick a rifle for a fight it would be the HK 416, Tavor or SCAR
If I had to pick a rifle for a fight it would be the HK 416, Tavor or SCAR
