Two interesting articles about the military in The Atlantic magazine

[MillCreek]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/?single_page=true

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

Both well worth a read.

[AJ Dual]

First one is bunk, the usual whining about the service rifle that's been there since Vietnam.

As soon as we had the A1, chromed it, issued usual cleaning supplies, and fixed McNamara's screwup with the powder to load 5.56, it's been a perfectly fine rifle ever since.

Actual controlled tests to destruction or stoppage with AR's/M16's/M4's don't bear out the butthurt. And when it does actually fail faster than some other rifle, it's long past the point where it's too hot to hold, and at a round count higher than several times more any reasonable combat loadout. And then the weight and ergonomics of the AR type rifle more than make up for the difference in round count which was already unobtainable in any realistic situation.

When you factor in (or more appropriately OUT) the "grass is greener" component, there's not much out there that makes the changeover to a different rifle worth it.

Would a SCAR-ish 6.5 to 7mm rifle with a piston and a few other minor changes be "better"? Maybe. Would being a bit more proactive about issuing 20" A4's and 70gr-ish ammo when the mission is not MOUT or long periods buttoned up in vehicles? Definitely. As would giving all units and armorers more leeway in replacing parts and on doing maintenance.

It's the usual type of claptrap that a left-of-center journalist gloms onto, figuring he's got a "new" way to be critical of the military and stir the pot of you-know-what. "I'm not your usual anti-.mil MSM hack, because I'm bitching and moaning about getting our guys a better rifle, (oh ho... look how hawkish and patriotic I'm being!) while simultaneously trying to demean everyone by implying we don't care enough about our troops to give them a decent weapon."

And as I'm sure many know, the majority of Western or Western-aligned SOF's who can get whatever they want gravitate to an AR/M-16 based rifle.

[MikeB]

I have a converted NFA FA AR-15 that does not have any of the fancy new components. I regularly shoot a few hundred rounds through it at the range, probably more rounds than your typical combat load out. I've never had a failure that wasn't cured with the forward assist and that only happens when I don't clean it for maybe 4 or 5 trips.

Granted I'm not in combat and rolling around in mud or dirt, of course if I was I would clean it a bit more regularly. I do not buy the complaints about the M16.

[T.O.M.]

In talking with guys I know who have served in one of the two sandboxes, they don't speak ill of the M-4 platform in terms of reliability or durability.  They praise the ease of use, the ergos, the semi-modular nature of the platform that lets each uses tailor the weapon to the shooter's needs.  The negative, as AJ alluded to, is the range limitations imposed by the short barrel and load.  I agree with AJ that there needs to be a better method for to tailor the actual weapon used to the needs of the soldier.  Suppressors, optics, barrel length, even caliber should be something that can be altered to meet the needs of the operation as determined by the actual unit, and not by someone in CONUS clicking boxes on a computer screen.

[HankB]

The only recent criticisms I've heard about the AR platform in 5.56/.223 have to do with terminal ballistics of the military ammo, particularly when fired from the shorter M4 barrel with a fast twist; I've read a number of accounts of GIs who had to shoot bad guys multiple times to put them down, as the bullets failed to tumble and/or fragment after impact, and just drilled little holes through the bad guys, much like a stab wound from an icepick.

Of course, not being limited to USGI ammo, I don't think this would be an issue for me personally . . . and though I don't pour sand or mud into the action and usually only fire several hundred rounds between cleanings, they just don't seem to jam.

[Jamisjockey]

My complaints from my time in had to do with clapped out rifles and magazines that should have been repaired or replaced.

[dogmush]

The only recent criticisms I've heard about the AR platform in 5.56/.223 have to do with terminal ballistics of the military ammo, particularly when fired from the shorter M4 barrel with a fast twist; I've read a number of accounts of GIs who had to shoot bad guys multiple times to put them down, as the bullets failed to tumble and/or fragment after impact, and just drilled little holes through the bad guys, much like a stab wound from an icepick.

I've heard similar complaints.
1. Those guys didn't autopsy, and sometimes didn't even go look at, the bodies. They are guessing at what happened internally.

And

2. I've been on a lot of military ranges. A badly placed shot with a .50 will go through as well. A lot of these soldiers are missing, or hitting  on vital parts.

[AJ Dual]

My complaints from my time in had to do with clapped out rifles and magazines that should have been repaired or replaced.

This. Directives, orders, budgets, policies, logistics... whatever it is that force unit armorers to be stingy are probably 60% of the "problem" with the AR pattern rifles. 35% of the problem is training, and/or rear echelon troops that don't really understand any mechanical device can fail, and don't maintain it like their lives depended on it.

Complaints of ME sand/dust that gets everywhere, I take with a huge grain of salt. IMO, most of that is like police chiefs in the news for shooting their own ass, and it being blamed on the holster, or "I was cleaning the gun".

The remaining 5% that legitimately is wrong with the AR inherent to it's design, and isn't support, training, or employment problems (Like my example of giving more A4's and 70gr ammo to infantry working in open spaces), you're arguably just trading it for a different 5% with any other rifle out there, or even more.

Bullpups? You get wall hugging and cornering problems in MOUT, and mag changes are slower.

AK-based? Heavier, arguably less inherent accuracy with a long stroke piston even when it's made to 1st world standards. Maybe giving up slide-in magwell for slower rock-in operation.

SCAR or some other polymer uber-gun? Actually heavier than a DI AR. And well, the HK G36 is not all it was cracked up to be after all, heat and melting issues turned out to be a problem in extended firefights.

Round and round we go.

I've heard similar complaints.
1. Those guys didn't autopsy, and sometimes didn't even go look at, the bodies. They are guessing at what happened internally.

And

2. I've been on a lot of military ranges. A badly placed shot with a .50 will go through as well. A lot of these soldiers are missing, or hitting  on vital parts.

And this.

Misses counted as failures. It's easy to forget you won't get a true immediately lethal shot/stop unless you hit that roughly bowling pin sized area of the critical brainpan and thoracic cavity and/or upper spine. Movement, gear and loose clothing on the enemy will all trick the brain to think "I KNOW I hit him!" etc.

Probably where a lot of the Korean war doubts about .30 carbine came from. Something with .357 Mag energy at 100 yards is nothing to sneeze at... IF it hits the vital area. It's really easy to get grazing shots on skinny PLA troops in heavy winter clothing. 

[roo_ster]

Atlantic should have had Tom Kratman write the article(s):
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/05/politics/soldiers-deserve-better-weapons/ (1)
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/12/politics/american-soldiers-are-dying-because-of-inadequate-weapons/
Much better understanding of the problem and solution space without the lefty baggage.  TK doesn't get it all right, but is more right than the Atlantic author and most who address the issue.

M-16/M-4 becomes more failure-prone with high round counts.  Moreso than non-gas impingement systems.  Springs get weak, bitty parts get worn, doesn't take as much powder residue or dirt to stop proper function.   Somewhat relieved with a change-out of the springs.  As long as the individual rifle/carbine is kept clean and the round count is not too high, though, it is pretty reliable.  The "kept clean" bit is a training solution to a material failure(2), though, because it needs to be looked after more than 1x a day in some environments...moreso than other designs.

A bump to 6.5Grendel in:
1. Infantry rifle with 20" bbl
2. CS & CSS PDW-ish weapon with 9" bbl
3. M249 or other SAW-replacement
4. Possible replacement of M240 variants with M249 in 6.5Grendel
Would go a LONG way to addressing effectiveness on target & range issues.



(1) My response to TK's article:
"Sig sg 550 and variants chambered in 6.5 grendel or similarly performing 6.5mm cartridge and call it a day Infantry combat arms std issue is the 20in bbl variant. Support get the 9in bbl variants.

Rechamber the m249 in the same 6.5mm cartidge. The downrange ballistic performance improvement may be such that many m240 gpmg variants could be replaced with a 6.5mm m249."

(2) Usually the other way around.

[Fitz]

A well maintained AR with good ammo and good magazines is a fine weapon.


Too bad the military has so few of these :-D

[dogmush]

The Army reserve at least is catching on.  We've decreased the depot maintenance interval in the last 7 years, require every weapon that is deploying to get a depot level inspection at pre-mob, and I've been drowning in brand new mags lately.  It seems that folks are finally catching on to "expendable " and just ordering a *expletive deleted*it ton of mags.

A couple months ago a Trans Bn's mag order came into my shop.  ~300 soldiers, 1 pallet of mags.

[Boomhauer]

Keep it in shape and keep it wet and the AR/M-16 does fine. Doesn't even have to be particuarly clean (and certainly not as clean as a Marine DI forces recruits to clean)

It would also be nice to issue a better round. Partially addressed with the M855A1 round and the Mk262.

My complaints from my time in had to do with clapped out rifles and magazines that should have been repaired or replaced.

This. So much this.

[Fitz]

Keep it in shape and keep it wet and the AR/M-16 does fine. Doesn't even have to be particuarly clean (and certainly not as clean as a Marine DI forces recruits to clean)

It would also be nice to issue a better round. Partially addressed with the M855A1 round and the Mk262.

This. So much this.

I've been playing with some Mk262 mod 1

It's *expletive deleted*ing fantastic. Problem is, its expensive.


M855 and its variants are garbage. A solution looking for a problem, the initial version was a disaster, and the "fixes" really arent.

A1 should have been the initial round, and it's satisfactory. But again, it was politically motivated bullshit and the money could have been better spent.