Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: VOR on June 02, 2007, 10:10:52 AM
-
Some of the opinions in here come as no surprise; soldiers are asking for more stopping power across the board for their small arms.
http://images.military.com/pix/defensetech/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf
This is a 2mb pdf file.
-
Same old story, I always preferred the M14, over the M16.... But I'm a big guy, and alot of the little guys had problems handling the old 14...
Without the bipod, it was a major handfull on Rock and Roll... Even for me..
This is my rifle, there are many like it, But THIS ONE IS MINE!!!
Just an old school Girene
OG
-
Wow, look at that. 50 years later and the M16 still sucks. Surprised?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow, look at that. 50 years later and the M16 still sucks. Surprised?
Laser, the M16 doesnt suck, it just doesnt meet current requirements anymore. Remember the M16 was designed to compensate for the limp wristed, wimpy, eastern white boys that never shot a gun before, were afraid of recoil and couldnt carry anything heavier than 10 pounds :cool:
-
Airscrew that's going to leave a mark...... :lol
-
Yeah well, he speaks the truth.
In all reality the us gov. has been stepping up cal size on its rifles AND handguns.
One prototype i have seen is a beefed up colt 1911.
holds two more rounds,and fired short .50's
They also have more .50's in design for rifles.
See kids, the major draw back was recoil and weight.
With the new anti recoil systems made in the past 5 years every weapon should be made for .50's
Logic dictates that if the united states military is pressing larger cal weapons into service, they may be planing on shooting at thing's no other rifle would stand a chance against.
we will be using a ever growing number of unmaned tanks, helo's and such into service.
If the enemy "china,russia,pakistan,iran .ect" will be using the thing they have shown, im willing to bet these weapons will be to put "rather large holes" into such said devices.
I mean, honda made little robots that can dance in perfect formation holding chinese fans. "ghey"
But the fact these things could stand on one foot,walk up & down stairs .ect
You code them lil' sob's to hold a gun,and reload it.
You can make a 2 million man army, nothing ever said they had to be flesh and blood.
Belive me, you wont want to be hammering down on those things with some small cal pos. 1970's rifle.
.50's are IN!
Always remember science fiction is based on science fact.
many belive a terminator or unmaned helocopter that hunts humans is bull.
Look around you, what they are truely capable would make even john conner **** himself.
:aok
Trust the karma.
-
^^^^^^:rofl :rofl :rofl
The guy who says all war is murder is an expert on weapons.:rolleyes:
-
Ye gads fishu is multiplying.... :eek: :huh
-
Watching History channel or some such last night, convinced me of the need for better stopping power. Some insurgents had taken adrenalin or something and simply wouldn't die in spite of having mags emptied into them and having the walls caved in on them with an Abrams.
You really need someone to be carrying something that simply blows them away.
-
Well, to me, 9mm and 5.56mm are great for plinking and practice, but combat is best left to 10mm and 7.62mm and up.
-
With the advancement of personal armor, it maybe time increase the firepower of our troops standard weapons.
P.S. We also need to be looking at sonic, laser and rail guns as well. The future is here.
-
Dunno about bein' an expert.
And yeah, thats just my opinion about war and murder.
right wrong or indiffrent.
.50's own you.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
With the advancement of personal armor, it maybe time increase the firepower of our troops standard weapons.
P.S. We also need to be looking at sonic, laser and rail guns as well. The future is here.
When was the last time America fought an army that wore body armor?
Try not to think too hard on this one, it's a simple answer.
-
You're continuing the fine tradition of planning for the previous war, laser. Well done.
-
HK has released a 7.62 revamped M16 like concept. It is being looked at by the U.S. for limited use.
http://www.hk-usa.com/images/shared/HK417%20Product%20Sheet.pdf
http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm
-
You're an idiot Laserboy. You're a standing joke on the BBS. Get over yourself.
-
Had an Armalite AR10 flat top/HB, It was a piece of junk... Shot well at first, but pounded itself to pieces.... The reciever stretched around the barrel threads.... Common problem, because the AR15 design wasn't meant to chamber the .308win/7.62NATO cartridge.... All the others clones are having the same problems too....
Went back to what WORKS... Springfield M1A/NM....
OG
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're continuing the fine tradition of planning for the previous war, laser. Well done.
It isn't a hard task. Analyze how many armies we've fought in the past, even during today, and count how many have worn armor. Zero.
Now, given our type of mission for the future, analyze the TYPE of army we will be fighting in the future, and whether or not they'll be wearing armor.
Even during the height of tensions with our biggest challenge post WW2, armor was not an issue at all.
How many can be predicted to wear armor? Still, Zero. That is, unless germany suddenly feels like starting **** again.
-
Try the russians, iran and china.
All have body armor now.
Nothing like china developing it, russia releasing the compounds and material for it "to mass produce it"..and some bellybutton crasy iranians to use the stuff in combat.
"wtf, i shot that guy five times before he blew himself up!"
Time's a'changin'
-
Something along the size of an M1 Carbine that shoots .308 Winchester and hold a 30 round clip would rock my world :D
-
The .308 ball cartridge doesn't cause as much trauma as people give it credit for. I'll try to dig up the research and post it.
-
Originally posted by VOR
The .308 ball cartridge doesn't cause as much trauma as people give it credit for. I'll try to dig up the research and post it.
No, it doesn't, but I'd prefer that level of power over 5.56. I'd say that the ordnance people could probably find a good (better than what they load now) bullet for the 7.62 for use against human targets, if they were so inclined.
-
Personally I don't see the issue, I carry an old M-16A2 every day with me while in Iraq and have total confidence that I can reach out and take down anything up to 300 meters out. I think for most of the conflicts here the M4 is perfect, we are not engaging anyone 300 meters away or beyond they are close enough I can hit em with a rock! I personally have yet to see anyone here bring up this 'stopping power' issue, I guess its all those arm chair quarterbacks at home with the issue.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're continuing the fine tradition of planning for the previous war, laser. Well done.
:aok
-
Originally posted by VWE
Personally I don't see the issue, I carry an old M-16A2 every day with me while in Iraq and have total confidence that I can reach out and take down anything up to 300 meters out. I think for most of the conflicts here the M4 is perfect, we are not engaging anyone 300 meters away or beyond they are close enough I can hit em with a rock! I personally have yet to see anyone here bring up this 'stopping power' issue, I guess its all those arm chair quarterbacks at home with the issue.
I'll listen to you on this subject before most anyone else on this board. I have a few squad mates who have been over there as well and will give them the same respect.
P.S. I pray you return home unharmed VWE.
-
.223 is plenty if you shoot them in the head, and I don't care what sort of drugs or what not they're on. Scramble the brain and down they go. I can hit a head sized target all day long at 100 yards with my M4.
-
I don't know first hand on what stopping power the .223 has. All I can tell you is when an inmate sees one pointed at him he stops climbing the fence.
-
You guys call em Hadji's these days... We called em Rags back in 82/83...
And again in 90/91... I'd be over there with ya now if I wasn't too old...
A troop should fight with the same weapons that he trains with... Its a confidence issue...
In 83, before the barracks bombing, we took small arms fire on a daily basis. The usual Rag tactics... They pop out and empty a Mag at ya, then hide again... Behind those mud brick walls... I'm sure you know the ones that I'm talking about, they're everywhere.... We took a few casualties before we had permission from the Peacekeeper Chain of command, to return fire.... Well, the brand new 16a2's that we were issued were finr for a little while.... Made the F*$Ker's bleed too.... But it didn't take long for them to move back out of range.... Beirut was a mess, shelled by the Isrealis daily... So there was blasted buildings and rubble that they would hide in, just out of reach... Their fire was inaccurate but a major pain, ya know? After some major *****in from NCO's on the parimeter posts... Our company CO had a shipment of 14's flown in on CH53...Some of us older Recon guys had experience with em.... So we put them to good use... One guy would drive them out of their firing position buy pumpin 7.62 in the area...After a couple shots, the 7.62 would penetrate the walls... And the #2 guy would be waitin to pop em when they showed themselves... Worked well too... So well, that the F***er's hit us with a suicide bomb....
Lost many of my friends there, and never got any payback....
I have a little exp too
Semper Fi
OG
-
Originally posted by VWE
Personally I don't see the issue, I carry an old M-16A2 every day with me while in Iraq and have total confidence that I can reach out and take down anything up to 300 meters out. I think for most of the conflicts here the M4 is perfect, we are not engaging anyone 300 meters away or beyond they are close enough I can hit em with a rock! I personally have yet to see anyone here bring up this 'stopping power' issue, I guess its all those arm chair quarterbacks at home with the issue.
I didn't hear anyone griping about it either, honestly. If you'd read the file though you'd see that it's not arm chair quarterbacks providing the input.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, it doesn't, but I'd prefer that level of power over 5.56. I'd say that the ordnance people could probably find a good (better than what they load now) bullet for the 7.62 for use against human targets, if they were so inclined.
I agree. There are already several viable alternatives in use in the civilian sector, but the cost of switching an entire nation's arsenal to a new caliber is unimaginable to me. I especially wonder how much of a viable option it would be considering the already tremendous cost of continuing the war and the threat of having funding pulled out from under our feet because it isn't fun any more.
When you get down to brass tacks you're never going to have a perfect cartridge within the confines of the Geneva convention that's lightweight enough to enable a troop to carry a respectable load into combat. There will always be a compromise and any weapon system for the rank-and-file troop has to be scaled to the lowest common denominator in terms of their ability to effectively manage it. That's just the way it is.
Also, the size of the weapon is definitely a concern. Our existing rifles chambered for 7.62x51 are too long to be effectively maneuvered inside a HMMVW; evan an M16A2 is cumbersome when you're wearing body armor. (I carried an A2 during my first tour and felt like a turtle every time I got in a Hummer and strapped my seatbelt on.) So, even using an existing proven cartridge like the 7.62 creates a whole new problem because it would require a new, shorter rifle be issued along with it for it to be of any real practical advantage.
I think that as grumpy as it makes me to admit it, we're probably better off just keeping what we have until there's a more convenient time to switch to something better.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
50 years later and the M16 still sucks. Surprised?
I liked it just fine. Never had to use it except the range though.
-
As much as I hated the m60 my opinion of the saw was lower. I only put about 200 rnds through one and it jammed about 6 times. Each time requiring the removal of the barrel to clear it, which is easy to do. It's not allways so easy to know if the barrel has been put back on correctly though. Since it fires from an open bolt, if the barrel is not back on all the way it falls off when you pull the trigger. Which would extra suck if you were shooting out a window or over a wall or something.
I read that there was an investigation because there were so many insurgent kia's in iraq with head wounds that they suspected executions. But it turned out that soldiers and marines were making head shots with m16a2s with optics from hundreds of meters on insurgents looking out from behind cover.
Even the best ak47s shoot groups wider than a man's torso at 200 meters. I've heard it said that the ak is a better mg than rifle, and that the m16 is a better rifle than an mg, I would agree with that.
Regarding military rifles, shot placement is more important than the size of the wound channel, since they all make comperable sized wound channels with 5.45 7n6 probably having the edge. It's almost like a rifle version of fn5.7.
The term stopping power isn't a very well defined term. If a man drops when shot it is either because he was shot in the head or spine, or he realises that he's been shot and he feints. Ever instantly drop a big game animal with one shot that wasn't in the head? Me neither. Most people feint if they know they've been shot, but then they get up. The ones that don't know they've been shot, sounds strange but it happens often, keep going untill they realize they've been shot. Remember that video from iraq that showed the US soldier standing by a humvee that was shot in his chest by a sniper? His armor chest plate stopped the bullet, yet he dropped like a sack of potatos. Three seconds later he got up and ran to cover.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Even the best ak47s shoot groups wider than a man's torso at 200 meters.
I used to believe that myself. It's a common and well-accepted myth.
-
if we allowed the more lethal ammo for our weapons the M-16 would be fine, other than a handful of dust jammin it. Go back to the M14 or pick up an AK in the meantime.
-
M-14 is too long.
-
Originally posted by VOR
I used to believe that myself. It's a common and well-accepted myth.
What do you mean? I've never shot an ak47 let alone an ak74 that shot groups smaller than a dinner plate at 100 meters.
-
Biggest problem with an AK is the ammo....
Loaded with consistant ammo, they shoot pretty good...
I have one here that will shoot sub MOA groups with handloads...
OG
-
Suave's comments remind me of the story I read about the Falklands war. An SAS soldier went head to head with an Argentine Marine. The SAS man had an AR-15, .223, the Argentinian an FN-FAL, 7.62.
Both fired simultaneously, the Argentnian missing fortunately. The SAS guy hit the Marine several times but he simply didn't notice in the adrenalin of the moment. Eventually the Marine saw blood on his hand realised he had been hit and dropped his weapon. He survived to explain later despite being shot three times.
If he'd been a better shot or more fanatical, the outcome would have been quite different.
-
Anyone watch future weapons?
.50 cal in what looks like a beefed up M16 frame. Single shots fired blew right through car door, through dummy, through car door on the OTHER side, and was gone who knows where. On burst mode the car just started disintegrating.
The other one that impressed me was a new .45 submachine gun that also featured some amazing new recoil management tech. Close quarters that baby will rock & roll. Think Thompson MG with half the felt recoil, much better ability to stay on target. They may have finally tamed the .45.
-
Originally posted by Suave
What do you mean? I've never shot an ak47 let alone an ak74 that shot groups smaller than a dinner plate at 100 meters.
They're weird, I'll admit that. I have AKs that group well and others that can't group worth doodoo. To be fair though, I'm not much of a shot group kinda guy. Once my sights are zeroed I don't mess with paper targets because my range has steel from 200-700m so I shoot at that. More fun. :cool:
Anyway, in my experience an AK sometimes can and sometimes can't group well but can usually hit steel easily at a distance.
To me the major drawback of the AK platform isn't accuracy but the ability to shoot accurately; the ergonomics admittedly leave alot to be desired and the sights are crude and the sight radius too short. These shortcoming as easy enough to address with some simple modifications.
All in all though I'd say it's accurate enough for the job under realistic conditions as is.
As for our ME counterparts, zeroing a rifle's sights seems to be a skill that just isn't taught, learned or emphasized. Putting the selector on the first notch and pointing it that-a-way was good enough for them until we started teaching them to shoot properly. I think that's fueled the fire of the AK inaccuracy myth more than anything.
-
It might be difficult to make sweeping statements about AK accuracy considering the wide range of manufacturing conditions. Unlike most arms, the AK is built in everything from high tech factories to shade tree machine shops in garages. The design is widespread, it's the Stenn gun of our age. Batches from the new factory in Pakistan might be machined with great accuracy and put together like swiss watches, for instance, while the same gun from a small time builder 500 miles over might be a general collection of parts flying in loose formation.
I think some of the appeal of the design is that no matter how it's constructed, it's generally a forgiving weapon that's got a solid and simple enough design to survive the wide conditions of manufacture and maintenance.
-
:D
(http://www.isaf.wp.mil.pl/fotogaleria/26/247.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Laser, the M16 doesnt suck, it just doesnt meet current requirements anymore. Remember the M16 was designed to compensate for the limp wristed, wimpy, eastern white boys that never shot a gun before, were afraid of recoil and couldnt carry anything heavier than 10 pounds :cool:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Thoughts?
AR Family (M16A2 ands M4) has had serious design flaws forever, but getting procurement changes made through the Infantry Center is like trying to get an intelligent bill that positively effects citizens through Congress. Very byzantine bureaucracy --- the kind Chinese proverbs warn against.
The H&K 416 piston recoil design, with one simple design change over a direct gas piston, is much superior.
Also, the rifles as issued are very rear garrison in their design. The416 comes with rail mounting system as a standard; military AR family does not. Many soldiers spend their own money on AR modification parts to equip their rifles and carbines they use in theater: combat slings, better magazines than issued, rail mounts, bipods, combat sights and optics, mounted lights.
5.56mm round is light. It may have good accuracy, minimal recoil, and light weight to allow a good basic load of ammo be carried, but it does not have the penetration often needed, and it's tumbling round means that light vegetation can throw it off it's intended trajectory. Army is very single minded on the continued use of the 5.56 round, even with plans to move to telescoped and caseless ammo loads. Using the 5.56mm round in squad automatic weapons like the M249 makes a bad situation worse when a small unit needs a heavier punch somewhere in it's ranks.
Many operators, by some accounts, have been adopting the 6.8mm round as a good compromise between the virtues of the 5.56 and 7.62mm rounds.
9mm is useless in a combat environment. .40mm, 10mm, .45... any would be better than the 9mm.
Special Operations Groups tend to choose their equipment in house, and they take what works well for them in the environments they work in. Weapons, clothing, equipment... their whole kit. The common soldier is stuck with what has been decided in the Pentagon, PEO Soldier, and the Infantry Center, as well as Congressional input and lobbying from big defense contractors have decided that the solider needs.
What to know what works well? Look to the operators and PMCs. Not what the common soldier gets.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It might be difficult to make sweeping statements about AK accuracy considering the wide range of manufacturing conditions.
True that, that's why I said even the best. Which would be bulgarians and Izhmash. The Vepr rifles are supposedly an accurized version of an ak47, I don't know how they perform, but at any rate, they're not really ak's.
Only one of those rifles in the pic is an ak.
-
The pictured Romanian PSL/Romak is an ak with larger parts. The action is mechanically identical.
-
Yep and it fires 7.62x54.
-
It certainly does. Also chambered in 7.62x51.
-
I am also tracking the sale of an AK-74 chambered in 6.8 SPC. AK's are also of course chambered in 5.56. At any rate, caliber is irrelevant. They're still all Kalashnikov pattern rifles, i.e. AKs. :cool:
-
You guys call em Hadji's these days... We called em Rags back in 82/83...
And again in 90/91... I'd be over there with ya now if I wasn't too old...
A troop should fight with the same weapons that he trains with... Its a confidence issue...
In 83, before the barracks bombing, we took small arms fire on a daily basis. The usual Rag tactics... They pop out and empty a Mag at ya, then hide again... Behind those mud brick walls... I'm sure you know the ones that I'm talking about, they're everywhere.... We took a few casualties before we had permission from the Peacekeeper Chain of command, to return fire.... Well, the brand new 16a2's that we were issued were finr for a little while.... Made the F*$Ker's bleed too.... But it didn't take long for them to move back out of range.... Beirut was a mess, shelled by the Isrealis daily... So there was blasted buildings and rubble that they would hide in, just out of reach... Their fire was inaccurate but a major pain, ya know? After some major *****in from NCO's on the parimeter posts... Our company CO had a shipment of 14's flown in on CH53...Some of us older Recon guys had experience with em.... So we put them to good use... One guy would drive them out of their firing position buy pumpin 7.62 in the area...After a couple shots, the 7.62 would penetrate the walls... And the #2 guy would be waitin to pop em when they showed themselves... Worked well too... So well, that the F***er's hit us with a suicide bomb....
Lost many of my friends there, and never got any payback....
I have a little exp too
Semper Fi
I though the A2 entered service FY 1984 with the Marines. The initial order was placed in November 1983 for 26,068 rifles (a month after the barracks bombing) with the first 1500 rifles purchased being sent to USMC Marksmanship Training Unit at Quantico for use in matches in January of 1984.
Charon
-
This is slightly off topic, but something I've often wondered about lately:
Many times on the news, I see US troops going out on patrol, etc., and it appears that some of them are carrying AK's. Are these issued for easy ammo availibility? Or perhaps picked up as "battlefield trophies" and used for the larger caliber and better stopping power than the M-16?
I seem to remember that in WWII, using the enemies weapons was discouraged because the sound of one would draw friendly fire.
Does the US military now issue or condone the use of captured weapons?
Again, just something slightly related that I've been wondering about. . .
-
The A2's first started showing up in July 83, in country.... I was soft on the exact date, so I called an old buddy who was there as well.. his recollection is similar to mine... But we had the A2's before the bombing... I remember soaking them in 145avgas to soften the cosmo.... They were BRAND SPANKIN NEW.... Everybody wanted one, not every body got one tho....
OG
-
SKJohn, they are not issued except to special troops and for limited purposes, and the ones issued are usually captured weapons maintained in unit arsenals. The practice of using enemy weapons picked up is generally frowned upon and sometimes expressly forbidden, but it really depends on the unit as to whether or not it's enforced.
-
What VOR said there, SKJohn.
If you've seen pictures of coalition troops headed out of the wire with AK's, my guess they were probably actually: 1 - Private Military Contractors, that yes, do buy local AK's for their job. 2 - Operators for Spec Ops, but then, you should not be seeing pics of them at all. 3 - Detached soldiers or operators working and training alongside Iraqi soldiers (MiTT's or SF Green Berets for example), which then often use the same weapons and rounds that the Iraqi's use. Easier to operate if you don't have many weapons with many types of ammo requirements for small units.
AK's are taken as trophies in country by soldiers, but most often do not make it back stateside, unless as part of a Company's or Battalion's trophy for display.
Now, there have also at times (OIF-II) been ammo shortages experienced by troops (often National Guard or Reserve troops it seems....grrrrr....) in country, where sometimes, illegally, and unofficially, said troops will augment their issued weapons with local weapons and munitions (Russian PKM and over 1,000 rounds). But then, if said troops could have gotten their weapons' basic load requirements and resupply in the first place...... this would not have occurred at all. By OIF-5, this should not be an issue any more.
But, in general, it is not the practice for common soldiers in country to make use of non-issue (but not necessarily un-modified) weapons.
-
I've been wondering about the 6.8mm as well. It sounds like a nice compromise, but I don't know enough to properly evaluate it.
I gotta say, I've heard so many mixed things about M16 reliability. I've seen it happen with my friend's AR that he takes immaculate care of. Not that I'm an expert, or that I'm knocking it. I've just heard a lot of things.
A high quality AK in 6.8mm with a better sight on it? That sounds real nice. Warm for happiness.
BTW, good source VOR. I look forward to digging into it.