US military switching cartridges

[Norm DeGuerre]

Just an observation
even in Afghanistan 1000 yards to the Target is not an everyday thing
200 - 300 yards is much more realistic for "engagement"

* Based only on my conversations with returning Army personnel *

Fortunately my Life wasn't disrupted by Vietnam or I might have a more different view of "close combat"

[Meketrefe]

I wasn't in the military, so my impressions of the marksmanship skills of an average infantryman are based upon what I've read in discussions/articles from the instructors in marksmanship units in forums and blog posts. Different branches have different standards, but for the army, I don't think 500 meters with an M4 is going to be a consistent event at this point. Could be wrong.

Perhaps some of the guys with military backgrounds would argue otherwise.

you are right. I don't believe the US army has to qualify at 500 meters. But I would think any experienced infantry soldier even with the M4 + ACOG are going to be able
to hit 500. I think a lot goes with the tactics and being in Afghanistan/Iraq they might expose to longer ranges than average just because of the combat simulation training.
For example, in some documentaries, if we look at the rangers in the Pakistani border we see regular units engaging targets well past the effective range. Gunners need
to work with spotters and we know those have a lot more training and experience than others like a driver from the regular army. But the training is there for those who
want it. The question is, do they even train accordingly like lets say some National Guard reserve? We cannot put everyone under the same lens. Previous experience and
Combat experience is another factor.

But I am guessing. I do know the Navy infantry in almost every NATO country trains for 500 meters and 800 for gunners and 7.62. Coast guard and Special forces and special police
also train long distances. Anyone in the ocean or coming form the ocean is pretty much conditioned for long distance engagements. They also train for CQB for assault teams like
ceasing a vessel.
I would not think these standards have been changed that much. Also NATO countries do not have all the same rifles, equipment and tactics. In joint exercises the roles of different
branches and countries is pretty segregated in terms of the mission. The most important thing is the planning and communications of the joint exercises and in those there is no live fire, only simulations.

When we look at basic roles and jobs, even the police the proper training might not be there. Some police rarely shoot their guns in their lifetime, unless it
is on their own dime and by their own interested. The requirement is not there and that is why sometimes and sadly they pay the consequences of just barely
qualification that is insufficient. Also marksmanship is a perishable skill like many others so one has to stay on top of it regardless of status.

Like an old wise samurai once said, we fight at the dojo, then we play on the battlefield.

[WARFAB]

Like an old wise samurai once said, we fight at the dojo, then we play on the battlefield.

Good quote.

[Jester]

Charlie, you should engage in this discussion owing to your fairly recent history!!!

the current stats say that we are burning over 100K rounds per EC killed. Army trains a select few for distance engagements and has the rest of the population shoot their M4 at pop ups for qual. The M4 is a great system for urban combat and the Peshitta job of going room to room. Put 308 in their hands and just get the mid range job done!

[Meketrefe]

The M4 is a bastard AR. A big mistake in every aspect of it.
The round is fine but the choice of bullet is not so good although it has been greatly improved. we have tungsten, screw environmentally friendly bullets.

We send a moab and decimate an entire town and we are worried about pollution. That is comical.

Dear enemy, we are going to bomb you with hellfire and 2000lbs bombs, but when we shoot at you we are going to fvck you up with environmentally conscious bullets! so don't worry. LOL

[Norm DeGuerre]

Put 308 in their hands and just get the mid range job done!

Exactly !!
back to the L1A1.
A heavy beast but indestructible .😉

[WARFAB]

we have tungsten, screw environmentally friendly bullets.

Environmentally friendly small caliber rounds and DU large caliber rounds = mildly schizophrenic messaging.

[Ham_Chu]

The environmentally happy bullets have nothing to do with combat, but lead abatement on the rifle ranges that soak up 55 million rounds (quick math, here) each year, across the Army posts all over the nation.

Each & every soldier is expected to zero (15 rounds min) and qualify (40 rounds). With half a million in the Active Army, and that number again in Army Reserves and Army National Guard...it adds up astronomically quick. And this only meets the annual requirement, assuming they are all first time GOs at both zero and qual (hehehe). Let's not talk of the thousand+ rounds each basic trainee will fire during their live fire week at the individual training posts, nor the increased requirement for Infantry units and mobilized units, etc...

Some of these posts have been in operation since before WWI. So many streams & rivers that run through those Impact Areas...standing water...ground water seepage....



It has more to do with environmental liability than friendliness.




On another note, immediately following Desert Storm, we were all briefed and tested annually on the DULRAM hazards (I seem to recall that was the acronym)...or climbing into Iraqi tanks ripped open by U.S. APFSDSDU tank rounds. Apparently, that much kinetic force seems to 'un-deplete' that uranium and renders it unsafe to breathe that crap in while looking for cool war trophies. Tungsten is what we USED to make the sabot rounds out of, before we found out how cool this post-nuclear penetrator was.


Last Note....7.62 is NOT an option. The 4'11" 110lbs REMF Private will not/can not handle the blast, noise and mass of such a rifle & its ammo supply. Not even considered. I heard the .243 was, once.

[Jester]

Hey Chas, thanks for chiming in on this and regards the ol’ Post nuclear penetrator; damn things can cause a lot of expense! Tens of thousand of dollars in travel hockey and travel softball and not to mention the expense of three universities!!!

[Meketrefe]

It has more to do with environmental liability than friendliness.

The sites are already heavily contaminated. It is a fvcked up situation because they never invested in making these sustainable ranges.
Yes it has to do with liabilities but more the perception they are doing something vs. coming with a more sustainable solution that benefits everyone, including the bullet.

The only reason I mentioned tungsten is because of its density ratio. It seems that even undisturbed it polutes more than lead.
So while not keep the fvcking lead that is already in the soil and water anyway? if undisturbed is not that bad, of course with exception of those ranges
that no matter what they will have to be cleaned up.

Yet again, at the same time many bombs and explosives are so polluting than render entire areas toxic. But we are not using those in practice runs,
and if we do is in the desert where nobody lives.

I guess the selling of the environmentally friendly BS is what is more irritating and the fact that they stole the design from a private company called liberty,
went to court and lost and we (taxpayers) had to pay for all that mishandling. Typical government lack of practical ideas and accountability.

[Ham_Chu]

...and I agree that the M4 was the wrong decision. But the "warfighter" (who was already burdened beyond belief) was *****in up a storm about all this new-fangled body armor and the throat protector, and side plates etc.... that was truly effective in saving their lives. Too heavy, and had to lighten the load for both the heat of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan. They thought it a great idea to resurrect the XM177 from Vietnam and issue in bulk. I am sure that 5.5" of barrel made all the difference in the load they carried.

They work great inside houses and in the semi-armored vehicles we tended to have at the time....but so poor in the open hills of Afghanistan that they had to resurrect the M14s from Vietnam (see a trend here?) for engagements beyond the M4 capabilities (300m+).

Those M4s are great to carry around, but I always wanted my M16A2....even being mechanized. (I actually had to fight to get my A2 for our (non)deployment, as I wasn't going to Iraq with an M9 pistol (so the Bn Cdr made me carry both, to teach me a lesson....Ooooh)). We had some M4s, which seemed to find their way into the hands of the platoon sergeants and warrant officers (never saw THAT coming).

The 5.56 trouble first started in a place called Somalia, when the Rangers involved in a little known 'incident' were complaining that the M855 ammo out of the M16A2 (first time used in close combat) was going clean through the Somalian 'militia troops' bodies and not imparting any kinetic energy to the target. This resulted in direct hits not dropping targets. That Five-Sided-Building concluded it was the near-starvation condition/less-than-the-average-Russian soldiers body mass that caused that effect, not the actual round itself.... The bullet was unaware that it had hit something and never tumbled inside the target, the effect from which this round derives its stopping power. After all, the mass of the 855 round was increased in order to provide better stopping power. And I am sure taking 5.5" off the barrel, and dropping the muzzle velocity increases effectiveness even more.

[Meketrefe]

The 855 is the biggest POS round ever created. At an angle hitting glass like in modern sports cars will create deflection. Maybe not enough to miss a well placed shot but enought
to miss not so well placed shots that otherwise could have made some damage. The gap between the penetrator and the jacket is a design mistake plus there is no warantee of proper
activation in any kind of media (soft targets) like you described.
The M4 is the right rifle with all the wrong choices. Barrel profile, porting choice, lenght of barrel, 1/2" toy size threads for what reason?. An AR can be shorter with a 17" barrel and recessed
flash supressor. But the ideal for MBR/most infantry is to bullpup like Israel and on top go 6mm like the chinese have done. We just need a 6mm that is better than theirs. The 6.8 case would do. As for the AR is fine if we incorporate some changes to make it an actual modern gun including vehicle gun.

6mm = substantial improvement in ballistics external and terminal yet not much more weight that is the biggest problem of modern military.