Yahoo rehashes the great M-16 debate

[AJ Dual]

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?

Yes, it's the SMAW, and it's origin is actually Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon

[MicroBalrog]

I know of the SMAW, but it looks rather bulky. (There's a reason ISrael doesn't use them). I was thinking something as small as an RPG-7, with a superior rocket. [Perhaps better fuel? A longer rocket? A slightly thicker rocket?]

Or, if SMAWs were issued, would that help?

[KD5NRH]

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

Especially if these ever come into normal use: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/ocsw.htm
They list it as a "machine gun" but for all practical purposes, it's a 25mm grenade launcher.  Think crew-served variant of the XM-25.

[230RN]

Bogie suggested ( way back in Post 3):

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.

Not a bad thought.  I envision a new CQB weapon... maybe something like this...



It's kind of retro, being all steel and mostly stampings, so maybe instead of calling it an M4 we could call it an M3.  But you wouldn't need a suppressor, I would think.  And in conformance to modern standards, it should be in 9mm instead of that obsolete .45.



Terry, 230RN

[Jamisjockey]

Bogie suggested ( way back in Post 3):

Not a bad thought.  I envision a new CQB weapon... maybe something like this...



It's kind of retro, being all steel and mostly stampings, so maybe instead of calling it an M4 we could call it an M3.  But you wouldn't need a suppressor, I would think.  And in conformance to modern standards, it should be in 9mm instead of that obsolete .45.



Terry, 230RN

9mm is for girls....

[Lennyjoe]

Whatever happend to the Army looking at the 6.8 SPC?  I built an AR in that caliber and love it.  Plan on using it for deer hunting this year.

[230RN]

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

The 6.8mm SPC cartridge was designed to address the deficiencies of the terminal performance of the 5.56x45mm cartridge currently in service with the U.S. Armed Forces.[5] The cartridge was the result of the Enhanced Rifle Cartridge program. Participating in the program were U.S. Special Operations soldiers, as well as armorers and other technicians from the United States Army Marksmanship Unit.[6] The development of this cartridge is remarkable in that it was designed by actual shooters in the armed forces, instead of by industry professionals. The goal was to create a cartridge that would bridge the gap between 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm, something that would perform similarly to the Soviet bloc 7.62x39mm AK-47 cartridge.

Wiki or not, "uncited" or not, to me, that sort of says it all.

There's nothing wrong with the .223 cartridge (derived from the triple-deuce .222 varmint cartridge.)  It's great on prairie dogs out to maybe 300 yards with good wind-doping and range estimation and a 12X scope. (I've hit 'em at 400 yards, but I had to take spotting shots to do it and I didn't enjoy it.)

But I must re-emphasize that with all the "improvements" that became necessary, and all the debate about it even 50-60 years later, and all the other systems that had to be created to overcome its deficiencies, it is self-evident, plain, and obvious, that it is not suitable as a military cartridge --rifling twists, canneluring, thickening the brass, boosting bullet weights and pressures, and brass-hat hype notwithstanding.

Re Lennyjoe's question:

(Ibid, date unknown) So far there is no confirmed adoption of the caliber by the U.S. military.

While there are many rumors of evaluations of the cartridge by several major Federal and local law enforcement agencies, it has not been confirmed to be in service with any official agency yet.

In 2010 the Jordanian state-owned arms manufacturer KADDB announced that they would be producing 6.8mm rifles and carbines for the Jordanian Army. [10]

Yeah, re-tooling costs, yeah, "stock-on-hand" problems, yeah, supply issues.  But maybe the AR platform just plain sucks. 

Ya think?

Me go now.

Terry, 230RN

[Firethorn]

Yeah, re-tooling costs, yeah, "stock-on-hand" problems, yeah, supply issues.  But maybe the AR platform just plain sucks. 

Are we sure about that?  It is the 2nd most widely used action isn't it?  It's also adjustable from .22 to .50, caliber wise.

For example, all your arguements were for the .223/5.56 round.  NOT the rifle shooting it.

The military needs to realize that if you need longer range or a shorter barrel, you need a heavier round for it.

[230RN]

Didn't want to get into the platform.  I've waxed sore wroth on that before.  Me shut up now.

[T.O.M.]

You know, there's a solution to this problem that's pretty quick, and pretty efficient with the tax dollars, too.  Uncle Sam's got a whole lot of surplus M-14's in storage.  I know, I was issued one as a parade rifle 20 some years ago at USMA.  Anyways, dig up a bunch of these rifles, put new stocks and some optics on them, and issue one to every-other soldier/marine in the rifle company.  14's for long range and support in the urban environment, 4's for CQB and support in the wide-open spaces.  I know they dug up sopme M-14's for the "designated marksman" position in Iraq.  What happened to those rifles?

[Balog]

Didn't Clinton destroy a lot of M14's?

[AZRedhawk44]

Didn't Clinton destroy a lot of M14's?

Yep.

Got half of one of those receivers sitting on my "angry shelf" right next to Unintended Consequences and Atlas Shrugged.

[dogmush]

You know, there's a solution to this problem that's pretty quick, and pretty efficient with the tax dollars, too.  Uncle Sam's got a whole lot of surplus M-14's in storage.  I know, I was issued one as a parade rifle 20 some years ago at USMA.  Anyways, dig up a bunch of these rifles, put new stocks and some optics on them, and issue one to every-other soldier/marine in the rifle company.  14's for long range and support in the urban environment, 4's for CQB and support in the wide-open spaces.  I know they dug up sopme M-14's for the "designated marksman" position in Iraq.  What happened to those rifles?

We do.

Before I left Iraq last year the 11 series guys were wandering around with M14's with aftermarket folding stocks and nice optics.  They said they were the squad designated marksman.  1 or 2 per squad.  Rotating through Camp Virgina in March of 09 so it would have been.......1/3ID, I think, although it could have been one of the Stryker Brigades, they get cool toys.

[T.O.M.]

Well, I'm glad to see that the Army still has some common sense somewhere.  Got a tool in the inventory that will work, then use it.  Hopefully, that same common sense will get the 14's shipped to Afghanistan and put to good use.

[230RN]

<ahem>

http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=418352

Thread Title:  "M14s back in action?"

One thing tossed about is that LEOs are using .223/5.56 to good effect here in the US.  But I don't see them shooting at 600 yard ranges with it.  More like 6 feet.

Another thing discussed is the ammunition burden  --comparing how many more rounds of .223/5.56 ammo the soldier can carry than, say, .308.

Um.  Yuh.  But.  If it takes several ineffective shots at longer ranges to do the same thing as one shot with something like a .308, where are you in terms of ammunition burden?

Yet another thing that's brought up is that plenty of deer have been killed with a .223/5.56, and "so there, nyah."

Yeah, well, you can kill an elephant with a .22LR if you can hit it in the eyeball.

So there.

Nyah.

[dogmush]

<  But I don't see them shooting at 600 yard ranges with it.  More like 6 feet.

The average US soldier can't reliably hit a man at 600yds, so it doesn't really matter how effective the round is.

You're also neglecting the usefulness of supressing fire, and the extra ammo it takes to effectivly use it.

[Balog]

Oh Lawd, are we srsly starting a caliber war pissing match here? Take it to THR guys...

[Boomhauer]

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.

Incredibly bad idea. There's a reason subguns have fallen out of favor...they suck. Pistol caliber in a rifle length gun is stupid. Best use of a subgun? Plain-clothes security details and the like.

The M4 and .223 is a good combo for what you get. Marksmanship training and proper combat training, plus actually replacing worn out *expletive deleted* is what's (sorely) needed.

[KD5NRH]

The average US soldier can't reliably hit a man at 600yds, so it doesn't really matter how effective the round is.

Since we're not giving them shoulder-fired nukes, the guy who can't hit is irrelevant.  Let the guy who can hit have the chance to do something useful when he does.

[Balog]

Incredibly bad idea. There's a reason subguns have fallen out of favor...they suck logistics. Pistol caliber 5.56 in a rifle length gun 14in or less barrel is stupid.

FTFY

[HankB]

. . . One thing tossed about is that LEOs are using .223/5.56 to good effect here in the US.  But I don't see them shooting at 600 yard ranges with it.  More like 6 feet.

More importantly, LEOs and people like us are not restricted to USGI ball ammunition - all manner of improved ammo (like Hornady TAP) can, and is, being used.

Yeah, well, you can kill an elephant with a .22LR if you can hit it in the eyeball.

So there.

Nyah.

Actually, to kill an elephant with a .22 LR, you don't shoot it in the eyeball; you wait until he takes a step forward and shoot him just behind the front leg, where the skin is stretched tight. There's a major artery that lies close to the surface there, and if your shot is both aimed and timed right, your .22 will pentrate the thin skin of his "armpit," perforate the artery, and Jumbo will eventually bleed out.

[41magsnub]

Would it bleed out before or after it stomped you into a thin red smear?

[Firethorn]

FTFY

Actually, I remember reading a study where, even out of a short barrel, 2.23 had better stopping power, better armor penetration, while inversely actually being stopped sooner by walls made out of drywall and such.

[Balog]

Actually, I remember reading a study where, even out of a short barrel, 2.23 had better stopping power, better armor penetration, while inversely actually being stopped sooner by walls made out of drywall and such.

1. I believe that is incorrect.

2. Being stopped by drywall is not a good thing for .mil usage.

[MechAg94]

1. I believe that is incorrect.

2. Being stopped by drywall is not a good thing for .mil usage.

When you are talking about multiple layers of dry wall, I'm not sure where you are going with that.  From what testing I have seen, 223 still goes through a lot of dry wall, but it deflects a lot faster.