Author Topic: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate  (Read 10268 times)

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,432
  • You're not diggin'
Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« on: May 21, 2010, 02:01:45 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_bullet_wars


By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writer – Fri May 21, 4:41 am ET
KABUL, Afghanistan – The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.

The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.

"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.

"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."

The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

___

Associated Press correspondent Sebastian Abbot in Lako Khel, Afghanistan contributed to this report


Questions for y'all:

What is an "automatic grenade launcher"?

How much velocity is lost by shortening the barrel from 20" to 14.5"?
""If you elect me, your taxes are going to be raised, not cut."
                         - master strategist Joe Biden

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2010, 02:06:13 PM »
Quote
What is an "automatic grenade launcher"?

A fully-automatic weapon that fires grenades, I trust. They come in belt-fed, mostly.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2010, 02:06:36 PM »
An automatic grenade launcher is the Mk19. It's a 40mm belt fed full automatic grenade launcher.

Looks kind of like a huge fat stubby Browning M2 .50BMG.

I don't have the exact numbers, but the M4 and the 14.5" barrel does lose a few hundred FPS over a 20" or even a 16" M-16. The main issue is that 5.56 relies on it's higher muzzle velocity (than 7.62 NATO) to create tumbling and fragmentation in human tissue. IIRC that bullet needs to strike at over 2100fps to ensure that tumbling/fragmentation occurs.

.30 caliber cartridges are a few hundred fps slower, around 2600-2800fps at the muzzle, as opposed to around 3100 fps for 5.56. And with the shorter barrels the engagement range where you're guaranteed fragmentation drops as low as 100 yards with the M4.

ETA: I'm surprised how accurate that article was. It got everything correct for the most part. And was even handed, understood the balancing pros/cons of small caliber rifles. And also got the development of the M16 family and origins/reasoning behind 5.56 correct all in a nutshell.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 02:16:47 PM by AJ Dual »
I promise not to duck.

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,255
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2010, 02:17:49 PM »
Different fights need different weapons...
 
Urban Area: M4 is a great idea... Heck, cut a few more inches off. While you're at it, chamber it in .45 and stick a suppressor on it.
 
Boonies: They're on that ridge over there. Nope. That one. Go get the guy with the M14...
 
Blog under construction

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,432
  • You're not diggin'
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2010, 02:20:39 PM »
An automatic grenade launcher is the Mk19. It's a 40mm belt fed full automatic grenade launcher.

Looks kind of like a huge fat stubby Browning M2 .50BMG.


Thanks.  Follow-up question: what's the effective range of these launchers?

Quote
I don't have the exact numbers, but the M4 and the 14.5" barrel does lose a few hundred FPS over a 20" or even a 16" M-16. The main issue is that 5.56 relies on it's higher muzzle velocity (than 7.62 NATO) to create tumbling and fragmentation in human tissue. IIRC that bullet needs to strike at over 2100fps to ensure that tumbling/fragmentation occurs.

.30 caliber cartridges are a few hundred fps slower, around 2600-2800fps at the muzzle, as opposed to around 3100 fps for 5.56. And with the shorter barrels the engagement range where you're guaranteed fragmentation drops as low as 100 yards with the M4.

ETA: I'm surprised how accurate that article was. It got everything correct for the most part. And was even handed, understood the balancing pros/cons of small caliber rifles. And also got the development of the M16 family and origins/reasoning behind 5.56 correct all in a nutshell.

Yeah, I was pretty shocked myself.  Thanks again.
""If you elect me, your taxes are going to be raised, not cut."
                         - master strategist Joe Biden

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2010, 02:40:40 PM »
Thanks.  Follow-up question: what's the effective range of these launchers?

'Bout the same as the Ma Deuce, given an HEDP round.

Though, I would add that the mount and sensor/sight will make a difference.  A MK19 in a CROWS setup will be more effective at range than a MK19 on a tripod using irons.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 02:41:32 PM »
Comrade Wikipedia states effective range of 1500 yards and max range of 2400 yards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19_grenade_launcher
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,986
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2010, 02:45:30 PM »
Not the mk19... that's not a field expedient toy for a squad.

They have some sort of new shoulder-fired grenade launcher with computerized integration of shell burst distance and rangefinding scope.  They call it the XM-25.  It's man-portable at about 14 pounds, and has a reported effective range of at least 700 meters.  Uses a 4 round semiautomatic magazine feed system for a 25mm grenade.

My guess is it will replace the M203.

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-to-test-game-changing-gun-in-combat.html
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2010, 02:48:37 PM »
Some units also have the South African Milkor launcher, a 5 shot revolving  40mm launcher.

Also, the Mk19 40mm grenades operate at much higher pressures than the man-launched 40mm, and IIRC they're a few mm longer in the case dimension so they can't accidentally be chambered in an M203, Milkor or similar, which would be bad ju-ju for the firer.

And yeah, the XM-25 is what's left over from the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon). The semi-auto 25mm grenade launcher. They're programmed right before firing by the gun from it's onboard laser rangefinder. The whole OICW had the HK G36 sort of stuck on underneath the grenade part, so you had a traditional rifle underneath, and the bullpup grenade launcher on top.

You got guys hiding in a building, popping up to fire through a window, you lase the outside wall of the building, then thumb a button to add +1 meter to the fusing distance, and the crosshairs adjust for range automatically, and the grenade counts the distance and flies in the window and automatically airbursts right inside the room.

Nowhere to hide.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 02:52:10 PM by AJ Dual »
I promise not to duck.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2010, 02:50:48 PM »
Not the mk19... that's not a field expedient toy for a squad.

They have some sort of new shoulder-fired grenade launcher with computerized integration of shell burst distance and rangefinding scope.  They call it the XM-25.  It's man-portable at about 14 pounds, and has a reported effective range of at least 700 meters.  Uses a 4 round semiautomatic magazine feed system for a 25mm grenade.

My guess is it will replace the M203.

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-to-test-game-changing-gun-in-combat.html

They've been pimping that piece of crap for a long time. It's still a terribad idea.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2010, 02:54:48 PM »
They've been pimping that piece of crap for a long time. It's still a terribad idea.

Dunno. I don't trust the .MIL procurment and development system either. Too much politics as opposed to "what works, period". in it.

OTOH, there were people who thought the smokeless powder .30 caliber bullet in a magazine fed bolt-action was "crap" as compared to the .45-70, And the M1 Garand "crap" as compared to the "crap" Springfield... ad nauseum.

I think it deserves a shot.
I promise not to duck.

alex_trebek

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 462
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2010, 02:58:03 PM »
So what we're saying is that no one design, no matter how well it works, is effective in all situations. Much like a civic may be a well designed car, but that doesn't mean you can go 4x4ing in it.

If this were true then gun owners would trend to own different designs in varying calibers depending on the percieved need. Oh, wait.....
 ;/

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2010, 02:59:47 PM »
AJ: it's a solution to a non-existant problem caused by stupid ROE's. It uses tech that just isn't there yet in terms of reliability in actual war time condition. It's a bad idea. Just because people opposed things in the past that worked, doesn't mean any new idea must be worth a shot.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2010, 03:06:54 PM »
I understand about the ROE, but the basic concept predates Afghanistan by a fair bit.

And I'd say the point-shoot airburst capability solves a problem that's been endemic to warfare since the beginning of firearms and cannon. Impact fused 40mm, or any impact-fused ordnance can't reach guys in defilade behind a wall. (Unless it's powerful enough to destroy the wall too) Either it impacts the wall and blows up, or it flies over the wall and impacts well behind them.

The ability to airburst on command right over people's heads 1m past the wall seems like a potential game-changer. I'm not saying if it'll work for sure or not in combat conditions, but it seems like an idea worth pursuing.

I think the real problem is .MIL weapons procurement is too political, and bad systems get deployed, and good systems refused based on back-room deals, and certain people's egos. The XM25 might be "good" and it gets scrapped because someone in the right place hates it "just because". Or maybe the XM25 is bad, the shell programming unreliable, the laser rangefinder too fragile etc. and be a "bad" system, but it gets deployed because someone has a hard-on for it regardless of the merits, or lack thereof.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 03:10:53 PM by AJ Dual »
I promise not to duck.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2010, 03:07:48 PM »
We have a weapon system that defeats defilade. They're called mortars.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2010, 03:17:57 PM »
Very true, and I was thinking of mortars.

How often does infantry run ahead of a mortar crew? How often is organic mortar support available? How well do mortars work on window defilade positions in multi-story buildings? (although now this is sounding more like MOUT in Iraq than Afghanistan...)

These are things I admittedly don't know.

I do think that some serious tech could be thrown at the mortar too though. Smart shells that offer some terminal guidance, or perhaps flight-profiles that aren't purely ballistic is one idea. Or maybe even the ability to GPS exactly where you want them, allowing the crew to target just the general area within the shell's ability to deflect etc.

If you're trying to say someone has the idea that the XM25 can replace the mortar, I do think that is a very bad idea.  =|
I promise not to duck.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2010, 03:20:32 PM »
In my experience (admittedly in Iraq) mortars and Paladins were readily available, but not used because of stupid ROE's. I won't comment on A'stan as I've no personal experience.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2010, 03:23:57 PM »
Boonies: They're on that ridge over there. Nope. That one. Go get the guy with the M14...
 


Nope, Azimuth and range.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2010, 03:25:13 PM »
The military's job is to kill people and break their stuff. Any ROE that negates that seems.  [barf]

If they wouldn't use them, then they were just targets.  =|

I'm surprised that nobody's tried just putting HE in one of those tiny backpack UAV's either. Essentially a Claymore in a $100 RC airplane. Just throw it, and then steer it into the enemy's defensive position from a PDA-like controller.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 03:29:46 PM by AJ Dual »
I promise not to duck.

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 04:42:55 PM by Waitone »
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

RaspberrySurprise

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,020
  • Yub yub Commander
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2010, 09:21:53 PM »
I wonder if small one or two man mini mortars would be useful, similar to the Japanese "knee" mortars.
Look, tiny text!

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2010, 09:29:16 PM »
I wonder if small one or two man mini mortars would be useful, similar to the Japanese "knee" mortars.

Maybe, but I'd say figure out a way to take the standard 60mm mortar and figure out a way to do away with the baseplate, and replace as much metal with composites as possible. The mini-mortar does not sound all that different than the 40mm and the M203.

Then give the new 60mm those GPS steerable shells that I and Waitone's articles are talking about.
I promise not to duck.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2010, 09:32:10 PM »
Guys, what about some form of upgraded RPG?

The IDF uses RPG-7s to great effect. I know the RPG-7 doesn't reach beyond MAYBE 300 meters, but can't the US military make a rocket with a better motor and put it on a vaguely-similar launcher?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,980
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2010, 09:43:57 PM »
Guys, what about some form of upgraded RPG?

The IDF uses RPG-7s to great effect. I know the RPG-7 doesn't reach beyond MAYBE 300 meters, but can't the US military make a rocket with a better motor and put it on a vaguely-similar launcher?

Yep. It's called a LAW, and it was replaced by an AT-4.

(That said, I don't know why we've chosen to have non-reloadable tubes vs. an RPG like launcher and shells, but we do have Light Anti-Armor rockets. I'd still rather have a truck with a Mk-19))

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2010, 09:46:44 PM »

What is an "automatic grenade launcher"?




something of an orgasmic experience, rolled into a religious experience. 
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”