U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[Fishu]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I had control of a squad of 12 guys, I'd do this:  4 M16's, 3 M14's, 1 DMR, 1 SAW, 3 UMP45's.  And then I'd split extra MG ammo between the SMG's.

I'd dump the SMG's. I wouldn't want to be 3 guns short at ranges longer than short. Disregarding country restrictions I'd go for 1 MG3, 2 G3, 5 G36C, 4 G36E.. although I could just as well change the country to Germany. MG3 could be swapped for MG36 if the weight becomes an issue and also swap one G36C for one more G3.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by lasersailor184


Absolutely wrong.  The first assault rifle was a russian weapon from around the end of WW1 (I always forget the name of it).  But if we were to ignore this gun, the first assault rifle is the M1 Carbine.  If you analyze it, you realize that it really is the first assault rifle.  Intermediate Cartridge, large magazine capacities, ease of fire, ease of aim, a decent range for such a small cartridge, and mostly it's ability to be altered to Full Auto.  A good number of M1 Carbines had the sear pins filed down to make it full auto.  At the end of WW2 the gun makers analyzed this practice, and just started to issue M2 Carbines.  They were the same thing, except that they had selective fire.

Well.. lets start with the Federov Avtomat you mentioned.. the 1907 version was chambered for 7.64x54.. and pounded itself to pieces.They re-chambered it on a intermediate sized Jap cartridge at 6.5mm, but it never made it beyond very limited production (3,000 total), never went to fully automatic and was about as reliably functional as a Chau-Chau. It should be noted that at this time, the BAR hit the trenches.. and since we're now arguing semantics, you can certainaly call it a true 'Assault Rifle'.. designed and deployed as a walking machine gun nest.

Next.. yer premise of calling the M1 carbine a freaking assault rifle. What.. you file the sear of a carbine and it's suddenly a freaking RIFLE? LOL!

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Next, clarification of terms. Assault Rifles are guns that carry intermediate bullets. Bullets which are more powerful then a pistol round, but less powerful then a full rifle round. Examples, M-16, Ak47, L85... A battle Rifle is a gun which shoots a full rifle round. Being able to shoot full auto is not a requisite. Examples, Galil, M14, FNFAL...

No, Assault Carbines are medium sized weapons firing intermediate cased rounds with full auto capability. Like the SKS, AK's, M-16, etc. Assault RIFLES fire Rifle caliber and case rounds, and have full auto capability.. and in fact, with the M-16 now clipped to a 2 round 'auto' burst, it's just a freakin light carbine... it sure as hell ain't an 'Assault Rifle'.

This is an Assault Rifle:



This is an Assault Carbine:

 

[Squire]

"Assault RIFLES fire Rifle caliber and case rounds"

The fact of the matter is, its up to the armies involved to classify them, I give you some definitions from the web:

* "This term is an English translation from the German sturmgewehr, which means "storm rifle.'' It is distinct from a "high-powered'' rifle because it is chambered for a less powerful cartridge."

* "A military rifle intended purely for one-man operation and equipped to provide both semiautomatic or full-automatic fire by means of a selector switch or other fire-control device."

* "any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use"

* "Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles."

All 4 defs are slightly different.

As far as "Assault Carbine" its a term used for shortened version of an assault rifle (usually), like the various shortened versions of the M-16, like the M-4.

http://www.bushmaster.com/le/weapons/bushmaster_xm15_e2s_m4a2_carbine.htm

[Neubob]

Not to show too much favor to the homeland of my distant childhood, but I think the Russians have pretty much raised the science of assault rifle developement to an art. The aforementioned AN-94 seems to be the pinnacle of development, combining both relative simplicity and ingenious battlefield functionality. It's not pretty, and it's not high-tech for the sake of high-tech, like some of these new, caseless wonders, but it does what it needs to do and with minimal fuss. It also introduces at least a couple innovations that have yet to paralleled anywhere.

Here's a good article

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the Russian penchant for squealing up everything good and worthwhile has taken a bite out of this weapon. Developed and fielded in limited numbers, it's unlikely to gain the recognition of the Ak or the ARs.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Major point in this thread:

The people who declare it "adequate" are not the people carrying the damned thing and being shot at by people it won't kill quickly and easily.

Oh, and the M-1 CARBINE carried a PISTOL caliber round, and was intended for use by officers who could not shoot well with the 1911.

Maybe that's what they need to do now. Issue the M-16 to people who can't shoot a real rifle. And then issue the real rifles to people who can shoot them.

[Hawklore]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Major point in this thread:

The people who declare it "adequate" are not the people carrying the damned thing and being shot at by people it won't kill quickly and easily.

Oh, and the M-1 CARBINE carried a PISTOL caliber round, and was intended for use by officers who could not shoot well with the 1911.

Maybe that's what they need to do now. Issue the M-16 to people who can't shoot a real rifle. And then issue the real rifles to people who can shoot them.

Hooahh!

[AquaShrimp]

the BAR hit the trenches.. and since we're now arguing semantics, you can certainaly call it a true 'Assault Rifle'.. designed and deployed as a walking machine gun nest.

Unfortunately, even though the BAR should have been the first assault rifle, it was deployed wrong.  The U.S. Army used it as a machine gun, in which it fell very short of the competition.  Heck, it only had a 20 round magazine.

I think that the Marines in the Pacific used it in the assault rifle role for a bit though.

[Maverick]

Keep in mind that in any conflict, especially one that is prtracted, logistics can play a critical role. Multiple types and particularly calibers of weapons screws up the supply chain and opens vulerabilities in operations. Once snuffy has fired off a part of his basic load he must be resupplied. Someone has to go back and get "x" amount of ammunition that has to be brought forward. Trying to maintain an inventory at a forward supply point is going to be difficult if there is a demand for 4 or 5 different small arms ammunitions. Mixing and matching weapons systems may look sexy on paper but it's a recipe for major problems in the field. It also means that cross leveling ammunition after a fire fight will be far more difficult if there are 3 or more seperate types of weapons / ammunition in a squad.

This calls for a definate situation of the "kiss" principle.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Unfortunately, even though the BAR should have been the first assault rifle, it was deployed wrong.  The U.S. Army used it as a machine gun, in which it fell very short of the competition.  Heck, it only had a 20 round magazine.

I think that the Marines in the Pacific used it in the assault rifle role for a bit though.

I was used as the SAW long before the term was invented or the role defined. It was carried and deployed in WWII and Korea in that role.. every squad had one, the 'big guy' carried it.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Maverick
Keep in mind that in any conflict, especially one that is prtracted, logistics can play a critical role. Multiple types and particularly calibers of weapons screws up the supply chain and opens vulerabilities in operations. Once snuffy has fired off a part of his basic load he must be resupplied. Someone has to go back and get "x" amount of ammunition that has to be brought forward. Trying to maintain an inventory at a forward supply point is going to be difficult if there is a demand for 4 or 5 different small arms ammunitions. Mixing and matching weapons systems may look sexy on paper but it's a recipe for major problems in the field. It also means that cross leveling ammunition after a fire fight will be far more difficult if there are 3 or more seperate types of weapons / ammunition in a squad.

This calls for a definate situation of the "kiss" principle.

7.62x51 is already TOE.. and in theatre in numbers. The SAW and LMG should have a common genre ammo (the 7.62x51). That puts two calibers of ammo at the squad level.. same as always.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I was used as the SAW long before the term was invented or the role defined. It was carried and deployed in WWII and Korea in that role.. every squad had one, the 'big guy' carried it.

Kirby carried it in the TV show "Combat", but he wasn't the big guy, Littlejohn was.  

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Major point in this thread:

The people who declare it "adequate" are not the people carrying the damned thing and being shot at by people it won't kill quickly and easily.

Oh, and the M-1 CARBINE carried a PISTOL caliber round, and was intended for use by officers who could not shoot well with the 1911.

Maybe that's what they need to do now. Issue the M-16 to people who can't shoot a real rifle. And then issue the real rifles to people who can shoot them.

Bingo.
That or increase the training of our soldiers to shoot the 'real' rifles.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
snip~The 5.56 was designed to shatter upon impact. ~snip

Naw, was designed to tumble upon impact, causing a larger wound channel. That was the main reason for the 1 in 14" twist for the barrel. The original testing was done in thinner air that the later cold weather (denser air) testing revealed the flaw of the concept. The bullet was too unstable at that rifling. The 1 in 12" made it too stable in the moderate temps making the round far less lethal than anticipated.

Flash forward to when the SS109 62 grain round was introduced in the 1 in 12" rifling twist...same thing, too unstable. They tried the 1 in 7" to overstabilize but ran into premature wear issues. Settled on the 1 in 9".
Still the round is just too unpredictable.

I'd rather we just went back to the .308 and better training rather than trying to overcompensate with the inferior quantity. We can design less felt recoil into the rifles for those soldiers that are recoil sensitive.

The Galil AR308 has so much going for it, accuracy, reliability, rugged, second set of night sights (tritium), folding stock, simple toolless breakdown for cleaning (K.I.S.S.), comfortable to shoot, very good human engineering, and well balanced. It is the epitome of the Kalisnikov design.

For second choice would be the FN FAL Para.

[Brenjen]

I have two M-4 Bushmasters & an M-14 sniper rifle retired from the Israeli army & a couple of AK's & an SKS.

 They all shine in one area or another. My SKS is my whitetail deer slayer, it was inexpensive, semiautomatic & short enough to be a good brush rifle. It is the replacement for my model 94 winchester 30-30 & fills the roll perfectly. Deer I have shot with a mini-14 (.223) have run off & had to be tracked, but not with the 30-30 or the 7.62x39.

I found the .223 to be a poor brush rifle, if it hits a vine or twig (or a bug in flight) it sends the round tumbling off or it explodes in mid air even with the heavier 64 grain bullet. The .30 cal rounds go forward despite obstacles. Of course so will buckshot from a 12 gauge for a few yards lol.

I think our military is likely to continue to give the spec-war men the option of what weapon to use given the particular mission & continue to issue the lighter round/weapon combination for the cookie cutter troops in the field, it just makes sense.

 I also have a feeling they are going to continue with the "which is better" arguement for years to come. Maybe someday they will design a battlesuit that negates weight & recoil then all soldiers will be armed with multi-barreled miniguns & this particular debate will evolve.

[Hangtime]

Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.



Here's the M-14, in Baghdad; June last year. Courtesy of LCpl Swendsen.

50 years old... that kids Dad may have carried that rifle. Still doin the fine job it's designed to do.. reach out and touch. HARD. FAST. OFTEN. RELIABLY. ACCURATELY.

No need to re-invent the wheel. Redesign the stock and handguard for the new lasers, lights and reflex scopes. Wallah.

Hard to beat proven perfection.