The "well armed" -- "well trained" soldier

[getitdone1]

Been reading about and thinking about military guns and sometimes get to thinking about how we can have a better armed military and how we can change our training for the better?

I'm wondering about all of our military rifles being chambered for 6mm. And, each man having a finely tuned bolt gun AS WELL AS a light weight, high capacity, select-fire gun. 9 lbs total for bolt gun with scope and 6 lbs total for close engagement, select fire gun.

Then, train our guys to shoot well, in all kinds of circumstances and do so to a much greater degree than's ever been done in the past. Say 10 rounds spent in training for every round used in battle.

The bolt guns would be finely tuned, excellent triggers, and with computer aided scopes that would give quick readings about distance, wind and trajectory adjustments.

One objective of this approach is to make our boys as safe as possible and pick-off the enemy at longer distances and demoralize them, lessening close-up engagements.

6mm should result in better accuracy due to less recoil and flatter trajectory as well as, perhaps, more lethal due to the significantly greater speed of the bullet.

Just some thoughts.

Don

[piller]

The 5.56 NATO round is very accurate, even out of the semi-auto platform of the M16. The A4 with its shorter barrel and shorter sight radius might not be as accurate at 300 yards or more, but it is still minute of human torso out to 300 yards. The M16A2 we got when I was in had a combat range of 800 meters if memory serves correctly. I saw a few of the troops using the standard issue sights hitting the 1100 meter target on the M60 range, but they were the troops trained as snipers to be in our unit. A larger and heavier round might be more lethal, but the accuracy of the 5.56 NATO is all that is needed by most people. Beyond 1100 meters and you should be dropping mortar rounds or having the gun bunnies lobbing shells at them. Troops in the open where you can see them at 1100 meters or further are in real danger if the F.O. or the F.I.S.T. are doing their job.

[Pisgah]

Just thinking, but..

If you look up the calculated rounds per kill fired in our most resent major conflicts, then multiply that times ten, times the number of soldiers -- man, you think we're in an ammo drought NOW??!!

[Griff]

Teaching our young boys (ok, if I must, & young girls), to shoot thru programs offered by the NRA and BSoA would go a long way to improving both the skills and discipline necessary to becoming a better shot as adults.

The arms we have are sufficient... The SDM rifle is outstanding. Even w/the 5.56NATO round. However, in the rigors of battle, optics are not an overall good thing. Optics're getting better all the time... but I wouldn't want every soldier to be relying on optics.

[MrMurphy]

Whether you want it or not, every soldier serving in a combat unit is using an optic, and has been since around 2005-2006ish. Every grunt has either an ACOG (4X) or an Aimpoint (red dot).


These days, even support units have a lot of Aimpoints. Except for the Navy, USAF (base personnel and support troops) and maybe some logistic type troops in the Army, you won't see irons. Optics=faster hits, proven fact. Even the Marines agreed (finally) and almost every Marine has an ACOG.


We don't need two rifles per troop, they don't have enough training time for the one rifle as it is.

Ammo can be improved, especially if we started ignoring the Hague Accords we never actually signed. Caliber might be improved slightly, but any trained troop can hit with an M4 out to 300 and an M16 out to about 500 if they know what they're doing.
The SDM and DMR rifles are effective even farther. Past that, it's mortar and artillery time. With the exception of Afghanistan and similar very wide open places, you won't see a lot of shot that far.

[horsesoldier03]

+1 on Griff's statement. How many times does someone have shooting issues and the first thing they do is look to blame the gun or equipment. The gun rugs totally cater to this. Our military spends way too much money looking to buy the newest piece of equipment always declaring that it's features are going to make a huge difference. Just look at how many times we have changed the pattern of camouflage in the past 10 years alone.

We definitely need to have shooting programs targeted at the younger generation. Not only will it increase their efficiency, it will promote positive gun publicity. As it stands now, the only gun education our government/media wants to promote is guns are evil and people that have guns are typically bad people.

[carbluesnake]

We have more than adequate equipment. Equipment is not the limiting factor. Training for the regular GI could probably be tweaked, but the real threat to our brave men out there is a govt. that gets in a war and has no stomach for killing. Put them in, and they will win. Micro manage them with polically correct tactics and we are going to lose men.

[7.62 Precision]

The weapons we have are fine, overall. Every soldier does not need two weapons, nor does he need to be trained for multiple roles. Each soldier has a primary role and the right equipment to fulfill it. What you are suggesting may be more applicable to guerrilla warfare, but not so much conventional warfare. Imagine suggesting that every driver in the army should be trained to drive a tank as well as a truck or whatever he drives?

Some of the weapons I was trained on and/or issued at various times: M16A1, M16A2, M16A4, M4, M203, M60, M240C, M240B, M249, M2, Mk19, M242 Bushmaster, TOW, AT4, M24, M21, XM107, SPR, M9, etc. I had a military drivers license for HMMWVs, CUCV, 2 1/2 ton truck, 5 ton truck, Bradley CFV, M1 Abrams, M113, etc.

At any given time I only carried the weapons that fit my current job and only drove the vehicles that font my job. Some I never really used - I moved some vehicles around the motor pool when needed, but never really drove 5-ton trucks, and didn't drive other trucks much at all. I drove HMMWVs a bunch and M3 Bradleys, but never really drove a tank or a 113 after learning to drive them.

When I carried more than one weapon it was a pistol and a carbine, or one or both of those and vehicle mounted machine guns or weapons.

In Iraq on many missions I had a scoped SPR and also an M4 upper with me, when I had a vehicle to support me, but when I was on foot, I had one or the other depending on the mission, or I had the SPR and an M107 Barrett, or just the M107 depending on the mission, and this was only because of my role - in a different role in the same unit, I would have carried an M4 or a SAW.

If I am in combat, I don't want the riflemen hauling around a scoped bolt-action, nor do I want the designated marksman carrying a SAW, or a sniper with an M240B. The weapon needs to fit the role. My role always determined the weapons carried by myself and the members of my crew, team, squad, etc.

At one point, my role meant that I operated in a 5-man crew. We had a 25mm chain gun, TOW missile launcher, M240C, M240G, one M16 with M203, four M4s, and three M9s. We had a 32 ton Cavalry Fighting Vehicle to carry this stuff and all the ammo for it.

At other times, I was in a HMMWV with an M2 or M240B in the turret, my SPR rifle in a case in the turret, and my M4 upper in my assault pack.

At that time, I was often on foot, which meant I almost always had only the SPR rifle.

Sometimes I was in a stationary position overwatching certain operations, and then I usually had the SPR and XM107, sometimes with a 240B as well, sometimes the XM107 only.

Sometimes I was leading a patrol and then carried only my M4, or if mounted, had my case with the SPR upper in the vehicle with me.

The point I am trying to make is that soldiers use many different types of weapons for different roles and different missions and different purposes. we have many different types of soldiers. To suggest issuing every soldier two rifles - one of which is highly specialized and requires a lot of training and a lot of specialized accessory equipment - is a very simplistic and unrealistic approach. Designated marksmen and snipers have a high impact for their numbers, so every soldier does not need to be in that role.

On the other hand, I think good marksmanship training with the weapons that are issued is severely lacking, and you have a very valid point there. Accurate fire definitely increases effectiveness.

[rogn]

It has been said that during the revolution it took about 200 rounds fired to produce a casualty. WW2 took about 20000 per casualty, Vietnam estimates run 200,000. I don't think we know about Iraq and Astan. Sounds like marksmanship has fallen off.

[Streetstar]

Dont need 2 primary weapons -- the troops just need to show proficiency with one ---- that extra 9 pounds could carry a lot of other , more usable kit

[AJMD429]

It has been said that during the revolution it took about 200 rounds fired to produce a casualty. WW2 took about 20000 per casualty, Vietnam estimates run 200,000. I don't think we know about Iraq and Astan. Sounds like marksmanship has fallen off.

Wow. 'Spray and Pray'.

[MrMurphy]

Not marksmanship, most of those rounds fired are suppressive fire. And in WW1, WW2, etc there was a LOT of suppressive fire (a couple belts of .30 cal supporting an attack, etc).


On average I carried an M4 with an M68 (Aimpoint). Because of my particular role we did a lot of weapon switching. Some days I had an M203 attached, others I did not. I also carried an M249 or M240 as needed due to how the USAF does things for it's ground troops (not that we agreed, but we didn't write the rules) and when deployed, an M9 as a secondary weapon.

Your average patrol would be an M4 guy and another M4/M203 or an M249 gunner for a two man patrol. A full fireteam would be two M4 guys, (patrol commander and rifleman) and another M4/M203 guy and either an M249 or M240. If we had the numbers, you'd have two M4/m203 guys. So four rifles, two grenade launchers and an MG. Quite a bit of firepower for a small group. Anything inside 400-600m could be handled by the rifles and further out the MG, especially if it was an M240 and the target was visible. Unlike rifle ranges, people don't like standing around...

[donw]

IMO, as having, been trained with and used 30 caliber weapons, the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and M14 i can attest to the effectiveness AND accuracy of them...it was a mistake to get away from the 30 caliber.

many will debate the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine as a combat weapon...to them i ask: "ask all the enemy soldiers killed in conflicts from WWII, Korea and Vietnam, by the M1 Carbine, if it was effective"...the M1 carbine was NOT intended, nor designed, for over 100 yards.

as a side-note: i trained with with the M1 carbine in a "Sniper" configured, scoped equipped, for 'close, perimeter, defense'...

the average "Kill" by an infantryman in Vietnam was from 40 yards...in Afghanistan, engagements normally START at 600 yards away and more; BIG difference!

that being said...

i also own and operate an AR15/M4...a fine platform...but i would not CHOOSE it over the AK47, in 7.62x39 as a personal COMBAT weapon.

personally, i believe the 5.56 is NOT the best choice for a combat round. it's selection is more from a "Soldier can carry more 5.56 than 30-06/7.62x51"...i think proof of that is that now many spec ops groups use an AR10 based platform.

the 5.56 is adequate for, close encounters, against non-armored up adversaries...most of our major adversaries ARE very sophisticated now and going to heavier bullets has increased it's effectiveness.

accuracy? i have read, and talked to active duty marines, who say the M16 sometimes cannot hit MOA...the AK IS capable of that, as an AVERAGE battle-rifle.

in the end...the ground soldier, at least in our system, is at the mercy of the politicians, many of whom, if not most, have no background experience with the military...sadly.

[getitdone1]

No doubt some people are gifted when it comes to shooting accurately and many are not and yet I wonder what percent of our combat soldiers/marines could be trained to pass the requirements to be a sniper? Every man with sniper ability--wow, that would be tough to come-up against. Well, I know every single man is not capable of this but I think it's an idea with at least some merit. I wouldn't be surprised, with really good, proper training that a high percentage of people could become 'sniper capable.'

My bolt gun suggestion might seem way off the mark and yet when you consider it has the most inherent accuracy, is the most reliable and combine that with a much higher percentage of our people trained to shoot like a good sniper--it then might not be as whacky as it sounds. Maybe special "sniper groups" rather than the typical lone sniper w/spotter.

Sometimes rather silly sounding ideas, when tweaked properly, can produce good results.

Maybe my best suggestion would be to up the accuracy training time by 10X.

Don

[Streetstar]

I

accuracy? i have read, and talked to active duty marines, who say the M16 sometimes cannot hit MOA...the AK IS capable of that, as an AVERAGE battle-rifle.

.

Say what? -- The Dragunov sniper rifle is not a 1 MOA rifle as a general rule, and the standard rack grade spray n pray AK carbine is more like a 4 to 6 MOA weapon. (An AK, not a Valmet, Galil, VZ 58 or other more refined AK hybrid)

An M16A2 is a battle rifle as well, not a varmint rifle ---most do well to shoot 1.5 MOA out of the box , even 2 MOA -- but it hardly matters as the red dot sighting systems now typically use a 4 MOA dot anyway --- the M4's are capable of the same accuracy as the A2, but many don't shoot them as well due to the shorter sight radius -- that and the aforementioned dot sights that are issued now

[Griff]

I still think its more of a matter of training than any specific piece of equipment. Neither boot camp nor an advanced infantry type school has enought time to teach really effective shooters. They might be enough to spot those with exceptional potential... but... beginning much earlier in one's life with even basic firearms familarization enhances that potential so much more. I think if you take two individuals of moderate potential, one with previous firearms experience and some training, maybe even just the basics of sight alignment, trigger control and muzzle safety vs one with no prior experience... the former is going to be that much better equipped to absorb the more advanced concepts at a faster pace than the latter individual. (Well... as long as that early training is proper)!

[7.62 Precision]

IMO, as having, been trained with and used 30 caliber weapons, the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and M14 i can attest to the effectiveness AND accuracy of them...it was a mistake to get away from the 30 caliber.

I would disagree. With the .30 calibers, you have increased recoil, increased bullet weight, increased action length, decreased magazine capacity but increased magazine size, and it is not the ideal chambering (in standard military cartridges) for precision work, either. You can argue certain scenarios, but the decision has to be made based on the overall combination of a lot of different considerations.

Now the US military held on to a .30 caliber for military rifle and carbine use for a long time. Those kind of decisions are not always made for the best reasons. The military is often reluctant to change. The US, going to a "small caliber" smokeless cartridge, looked around at what other countries were doing and decided to go with a .30 caliber rifle. The rifle chosen was the Krag. What was the Krag's original chambering?
We then fought against 7mm Mausers, and decided we wanted to replace the Krag with a similar rifle. But we were used to a .30 caliber by then, so that is what was specified for the 1903 rifle. When we looked toward a semi-auto rifle, the Garand was developed. What was the Garand's original chambering?

Look at the Mausers - The Germans had a love affair with the 8mm, some countries, especially in the western hemisphere liked .30 calibers, but Mauser always pushed a 7mm.

What caliber was the P14 Enfield originally designed for (the P13 prototype)? Ever hear of the .276 Enfield? What about the .280 British in the 1940s?

If we look through history, we see a constant trend of the guys who knew what they were doing designing rifles for and trying to interest militaries in 7mm and 6.5mm cartridges, with some 6mms thrown in. Decisions to go with .30 calibers or 8mm calibers were never made because they were better calibers.

Now I think for a basic combat caliber, the 5.56 with the right bullet is better than a .308. This is coming from someone who used to make the same arguments you are. I changed my mind due to practical reasons, learning from experience.

If we look at intermediate cartridges, there are no .30 calibers that have a big advantage over 5.56, all things considered.

BUT, if we look at an intermediate-sized 6.5mm that will go in an M4, we have an advantage over both 5.56 and .308. If we look at a 7mm, the advantages are a little less than the 6.5, but still a very effective combat cartridge. Even a 6mm could be an improvement.

many will debate the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine as a combat weapon...to them i ask: "ask all the enemy soldiers killed in conflicts from WWII, Korea and Vietnam, by the M1 Carbine, if it was effective"...the M1 carbine was NOT intended, nor designed, for over 100 yards.

Yes, the M1 Carbine was a great little weapon. The Germans liked and used them, when they could get enough ammo. Complaints about ineffectiveness did not really surface until Korea and later.

the average "Kill" by an infantryman in Vietnam was from 40 yards...in Afghanistan, engagements normally START at 600 yards away and more; BIG difference!

Which is why we use snipers, designated marksman, 7.62x51 and .50 BMG machine guns, and a standard rifle/cartridge combination capable of accurate engagement at longer ranges. Also, there is still a lot of close fighting in Afghanistan as well.

i also own and operate an AR15/M4...a fine platform...but i would not CHOOSE it over the AK47, in 7.62x39 as a personal COMBAT weapon.

I would not CHOOSE an AK over an AR-15/M4. The M4 is a superior weapon in almost every way, except it is much more expensive to produce. The AR platform has accuracy, reliability, much better ergonomics and controls, is much easier to mount optics on and has much better iron sight options, and in my experience is more reliable on average. It has better range, ammo and magazines are lighter and more compact, and recoil is less and linear, so you can stay on target and fire more quickly.
If an M4 is maintained, it is extremely reliable. The hype about it being unreliable is just hype.
If the AK is not maintained, it becomes very unreliable. The hype about it being way more reliable than the M4 is just hype.
ALL weapons must be maintained to run well.
The 7.62x39 has a small edge in barrier penetration over 5.56 ammo that has been fielded in the past. There are new bullet designs now that give the 5.56 better penetration in many materials, though.

Chamber the M4 in a 6.5 or 7mm, and that advantage goes away anyway.

There is a reason why Israel, with an AK variant that was among the best, replaced the Galil with the M16. There is a reason why countries who previously used AKs are switching to M16s and other weapons.

personally, i believe the 5.56 is NOT the best choice for a combat round. it's selection is more from a "Soldier can carry more 5.56 than 30-06/7.62x51"...i think proof of that is that now many spec ops groups use an AR10 based platform.

I think that an increase in caliber to 6.5mm would be an excellent upgrade. However, I think that the 5.56 does very well as a combat cartridge. I have seen it, and you will see units that are able to choose still using it heavily.
I don't think an increase to .308 or .30-06 is the answer. It just does not make sense.
The AR-10-based platform being used is a sniper rifle. That is a whole different consideration. M21s are also being used as DM rifles, to supplement the M4s carried by the troops. The special ops soldiers are not wholesale running Mk10s or M110s as service rifles.

accuracy? i have read, and talked to active duty marines, who say the M16 sometimes cannot hit MOA...the AK IS capable of that, as an AVERAGE battle-rifle.

Average accuracy of the AK is well bellow average accuracy of an M16. There are AKs that shoot well above average and M16s that shoot below average. I saw one once that was built without the barrel extension pin - the barrel could be rotated by hand. That does not mean accuracy is equal between the two.
On a standard issue M16, the way you shoot it can make a big difference, since the barrel is not free-floated. If you need accuracy, rest the rifle on the magazine, or hold the magazine well instead of the handguard for precise shooting. At closer combat ranges, it won't make a difference. Other considerations for accuracy include the quality of the sights and the sight radius.
I, personally, have never shot an inaccurate M16 or M4. I have shot wildly inaccurate AKs. An AK can be made accurate - Marc Krebs is building 6.5 Grendel and .308 AKs that shoot .5 MOA, but it is an expensive redesign of the system.

In other words, the fact that you say that an occasional M16 can't shoot 1 MOA groups, and an occasional AK can shoot a 1 MOA group, does not mean accuracy is equal.

in the end...the ground soldier, at least in our system, is at the mercy of the politicians, many of whom, if not most, have no background experience with the military...sadly.

Yes, just look at the crazy stuff being claimed by some of the politicians trying to force a change away from the M16/M4. I saw a quote from one of those guys recently from when he testified that in the case of almost every casualty we have had in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soldier was found with his rifle disassemble and scattered in pieces around him because he was trying to get it to work in the middle of a firefight.
Politicians forced the Army to go with one vehicle for both a Cavalry recon vehicle and an infantry armored personnel carrier. While the Bradley is a great vehicle, there could have been a more ideal recon vehicle, but that was killed by politicians who knew nothing about the difference between mech infantry and Cavalry, nor the importance of recon/counter-recon on the outcome of a battle.

On the other hand, the military is often its own worst enemy, making poor decisions due to bureaucracy, tradition, comfort with the known and distrust of the unknown, etc. The reason the 6.8 SPC program was killed was because the brass was upset that it was developed outside official channels, and felt that they needed to make it an example to others who might try to develop something outside the "right" channels.
Other times, it has to do with leadership being to afraid to do the right thing or trying to be politically correct. I had a COL. from a unit I was working under once try to prevent me from using my Barrett XM107 because he had been watching too much TV (CA had just banned them, so they were in the news) and felt that the .50 BMG rifle was "too devastating" He finally relented, but said I could only use M33 ball ammo, not the API ammo that we used as a precision cartridge.

[7.62 Precision]

No doubt some people are gifted when it comes to shooting accurately and many are not and yet I wonder what percent of our combat soldiers/marines could be trained to pass the requirements to be a sniper? Every man with sniper ability--wow, that would be tough to come-up against. Well, I know every single man is not capable of this but I think it's an idea with at least some merit. I wouldn't be surprised, with really good, proper training that a high percentage of people could become 'sniper capable.'

Most people could be sufficiently trained to be able to shoot with sniper-like accuracy. Many of these could not be taught to be a sniper just due to lack of interest and lack of motivation. The cost of training a sniper is extremely high.

The problem is that most shooters in the Army are not trained by anyone who has any great shooting skill. I have watched NCOs start with someone who barely qualifies, and by the time they are done with the poor kids, they can't come close to qualifying. I saw one soldier miss qualifying by one round. His squad leader started working with him, and in half a day, the kid couldn't hit 10 out of 40 shots. I went to his platoon leader and asked if I could work with him. I worked with him that afternoon and he came back the next morning an shot 36 out of 40.

The designated marksman program is a very good thing. If one soldier in each squad is trained as an SDM, that means one out of every 9 (in standard infantry organization) is assigned as an SDM. It means that more than that number have been trained as an SDM, though. Maybe the some guys who are now in a weapons squad used to be SDMs. Squad leaders and Platoon SGTs and 1SGs; Riflemen and grenadiers and RTOs may all have previous training and experience as SDMs. This means that all of these soldiers and NCOs can train other soldiers to shoot well.

One of the values of the DM program is that soldiers that are trained to a higher level of marksmanship are able to train other soldiers in their units at little additional cost to the government.

So you see, your suggestions are not totally off, there is great value in training a certain percentage of soldiers to a higher level.

My bolt gun suggestion might seem way off the mark and yet when you consider it has the most inherent accuracy

Not true. The AR platform can easily match bolt rifles for far less cost and effort. http://762precision.wordpress.com/artic ... man-rifle/

Maybe my best suggestion would be to up the accuracy training time by 10X.

You should read this book http://www.cfspress.com/sharpshooters/ In the first chapter, it covers the origins of the sharpshooter concept, with examples of the effectiveness of colonial marksmen during the Revolution. It has some great quoted from British officers and soldiers detailing their terror at facing a rifleman enemy, and the awful certainty that each round fired by the Americans was deliberately aimed at a british soldier, and likely to hit its mark.

[7.62 Precision]

I still think its more of a matter of training than any specific piece of equipment . . . . but... beginning much earlier in one's life with even basic firearms familarization enhances that potential so much more.

Yes, we were once a nation of riflemen.

[65bee]

This subject has been debated by the military since WW1. Read some of the old American Rifleman magazines from the 1030s-40s-50s, and there are numerous articles discussing this subject, most written by high-ranking combat officers. Hard to believe, but one fact that was determined is that the average soldier in WW2 and Korea never discharged his weapon during combat!!!

[7.62 Precision]

. . . one fact that was determined is that the average soldier in WW2 and Korea never discharged his weapon during combat!!!

If you consider the ratio of support troops to combat troops - that has a lot to do with that statistic.

[MrMurphy]

Agreed. Quite a lot of support troops never even saw the enemy.



The current-generation M68 (Aimpoint Comp M3 and M4 or M4s) have a 2 MOA dot, specifically because of the longer range engagements. The original Comp M2 adopted had a 4 MOA dot.


The government specification for the M16 is around 2-3 MOA. With the current issue ammo, you're doing well to shoot better than that. With better quality ammo, sub minute is possible.

[Old Time Hunter]

I think that an increase in caliber to 6.5mm would be an excellent upgrade.

Hmmm...Swede's had it right all along.

[firefuzz]

Entering the Army in post-Vietnam '75 I was trained with the old, standard M16A1, a lot of which were badly worn Vietnam returns especially in basic training and AIT. I have never thought the AK47 was a better weapon than the M16 when properly maintained. The newer M16A2's, A3's, and M4's are hands down better rifles than the original A1's, but, IMHO, the change to the 62gr. ammo was a "bandage" approach to the one major problem with the system....to0 small/light a projectile. I've played with the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.8 SPC, and the 300 ACC Blackout all in AR15 16" platforms. Any of them would be an improvement with my nod going to the 6.5 Grendel as the "best overall" combat cartridge available in the M16/M4 platform. I think that the issue of optical sighting systems for regular infantry and Marines is the greatest improvement in weapons systems since the adoption of the M1 Garand. Most assuredly training must include marksmanship training and qualification with iron sights in case of equipment failure, but anything that makes a rifleman's overall job easier to me is a good thing.

The standard issue sidearm NCO's and such was still the 1911 Gov't model, many made during and before WWII and loose as a goose, I think we fired 15 rounds of ammo during AIT with one. Even saying this I believe the change from the M1911 to the M9 Beretta was not a good decision for the American military. I don't challenge the cartridge change, the 9mm can certainly be an efficient personal defense round, I challenge the Beretta weapons system as the choice of firearm. As a LEO firearms instruction I can and will attest that the Beretta M9 pistol is too large in the frame for the average shooters hands and therefore the average shooter will never be as good a shot with it as they would with a smaller framed pistol like the SIG, Glock, etc.

The M60A1 was still the standard issue GPMG, and again many were Vietnam returns and had been rebuilt more than once. I was never impressed with the M60...it was okay when it worked, but seemed to need a lot of maintenance to stay running. We heard all these wonderful things from troops returning from Germany about the German's FN GPMG and I remember the announcement of the M60's replacement in '77 I think, but I never saw or shot one. I understand the newer M60A3's and A4's are much better than the A1's, and my nephew says the M249 SAW is "the bomb", he's played with them in both Kuwait and Afghanistan so I'll trust his combat experience over anything I've read or heard.

The M203 was the standard grenade launcher, but there were still a lot of M79's floating around, especially in reserve and guard units. Although I've heard amazing stories from Vietnam vets about the capabilities of the M79 I believe the M203 is a much better system as the grenade launcher is not the grenadier's primary weapon. I've heard about an newer model that's better than the M203 but have no one that has told me any first hand "I've used it" info to pass on.

The M14 based M21 was still the standard sniper rifle, but if you were lucky enough to get to go to the AMU you might get to shoot versions of the new "experimental" bolt gun that would become the M24 years later. Here, IMHO, is where the improvements in equipment have been astronomical, both in rifles, optical systems, and doctrine. About six years ago I was privileged to get to shoot several new systems, some now in use and some that are being developed for submission for procurement, with someone else paying for the ammo. Ranges were from 0-3000yds, calibers from .30 to .50, in daylight and almost total darkness. The available, not necessarily issued, equipment difference between say a '76 sniper and today's is about the same as the difference between a Revolutionary War musket and the M1 Garand. It's been a long time since I had that much fun with my clothes on and I still have/get that S-A-G on my face thinking about it.

All in all I think there have been vast improvements in equipment for our military since I was in. Is there still room for improvement....you betcha.

Rob

[firefuzz]

Entering the Army in post-Vietnam '75 I was trained with the old, standard M16A1, a lot of which were badly worn Vietnam returns especially in basic training and AIT. I have never thought the AK47 was a better weapon than the M16 when properly maintained. The newer M16A2's, A3's, and M4's are hands down better rifles than the original A1's, but, IMHO, the change to the 62gr. ammo was a "bandage" approach to the one major problem with the system....to0 small/light a projectile. I've played with the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.8 SPC, and the 300 ACC Blackout all in AR15 16" platforms. Any of them would be an improvement with my nod going to the 6.5 Grendel as the "best overall" combat cartridge available in the M16/M4 platform. I think that the issue of optical sighting systems for regular infantry and Marines is the greatest improvement in weapons systems since the adoption of the M1 Garand. Most assuredly training must include marksmanship training and qualification with iron sights in case of equipment failure, but anything that makes a rifleman's overall job easier to me is a good thing.

The standard issue sidearm NCO's and such was still the 1911 Gov't model, many made during and before WWII and loose as a goose, I think we fired 15 rounds of ammo during AIT with one. Even saying this I believe the change from the M1911 to the M9 Beretta was not a good decision for the American military. I don't challenge the cartridge change, the 9mm can certainly be an efficient personal defense round, I challenge the Beretta weapons system as the choice of firearm. As a LEO firearms instruction I can and will attest that the Beretta M9 pistol is too large in the frame for the average shooters hands and therefore the average shooter will never be as good a shot with it as they would with a smaller framed pistol like the SIG, Glock, etc.

The M60A1 was still the standard issue GPMG, and again many were Vietnam returns and had been rebuilt more than once. I was never impressed with the M60...it was okay when it worked, but seemed to need a lot of maintenance to stay running. We heard all these wonderful things from troops returning from Germany about the German's FN GPMG and I remember the announcement of the M60's replacement in '77 I think, but I never saw or shot one. I understand the newer M60A3's and A4's are much better than the A1's, and my nephew says the M249 SAW is "the bomb", he's played with them in both Kuwait and Afghanistan so I'll trust his combat experience over anything I've read or heard.

The M203 was the standard grenade launcher, but there were still a lot of M79's floating around, especially in reserve and guard units. Although I've heard amazing stories from Vietnam vets about the capabilities of the M79 I believe the M203 is a much better system as the grenade launcher is not the grenadier's primary weapon. I've heard about an newer model that's better than the M203 but have no one that has told me any first hand "I've used it" info to pass on.

The M14 based M21 was still the standard sniper rifle, but if you were lucky enough to get to go to the AMU you might get to shoot versions of the new "experimental" bolt gun that would become the M24 years later. Here, IMHO, is where the improvements in equipment have been astronomical, both in rifles, optical systems, and doctrine. About six years ago I was privileged to get to shoot several new systems, some now in use and some that are being developed for submission for procurement, with someone else paying for the ammo. Ranges were from 0-3000yds, calibers from .30 to .50, in daylight and almost total darkness. The available, not necessarily issued, equipment difference between say a '76 sniper and today's is about the same as the difference between a Revolutionary War musket and the M1 Garand. It's been a long time since I had that much fun with my clothes on and I still have/get that S-A-G on my face thinking about it.

All in all I think there have been vast improvements in equipment for our military since I was in. Is there still room for improvement....you betcha.

Rob

[MrMurphy]

Germany never used the FN, though almost every other country has (Britain and the colonies, most African countries, etc). Germany has stuck with the MG3, the MG42 (modernized to 7.62 Nato) since the 1950s. I qual'd on the 60 twice and carried one a few times in training, but spent much of my time with the M240 (FN MAG 58). As a true GP gun they are excellent, though being a GP gun, not perfect for everything. The 249 when maintained and not shot to death (like some are) generally performs well. Never saw combat with either personally, but seeing as just about every one of my friends or relatives has, they all tend to agree.


The 62 grain load was actually adopted because of the M249, and the Army trying to keep the longer-range capability of a machine gun. They figured both should use the same ammo and changed the M16A2 then in development to that round. Having spoken (at length) to the now retired USMC officer who did much of the groundwork on the A2, he had both good and bad to say about that... they were also trying to improve on armor-piercing capability against Soviet body armor.

[7.62 Precision]

Any of them would be an improvement with my nod going to the 6.5 Grendel as the "best overall" combat cartridge available in the M16/M4 platform. I think that the issue of optical sighting systems for regular infantry and Marines is the greatest improvement in weapons systems since the adoption of the M1 Garand.

I agree on both of these points, though there are cartridges available now that really increase the effectiveness of the 5.56, and I would never feel under-armed fighting with a 5.56.
I don't understand the people who are opposed to optics on a combat rifle - it is the single most valuable improvement in the individual soldier's equipment for increasing effectiveness.

. . . the change from the M1911 to the M9 Beretta was not a good decision for the American military. I don't challenge the cartridge change, the 9mm can certainly be an efficient personal defense round, I challenge the Beretta weapons system as the choice of firearm . . . . the Beretta M9 pistol is too large in the frame for the average shooters hands and therefore the average shooter will never be as good a shot with it as they would with a smaller framed pistol like the SIG, Glock, etc.

I carried and shot the M9 for many years.
I could qualify expert with the M9 on a paper target qualification, but it was hard work for me. Most other common pistols would be easy. Of course the standard pop-up target qualification was cake with any pistol, but true accurate shooting has always been work for me with the M9.
The M9 is dangerous because it has a slide-mounted safety. It is designed so that charging the pistol is supposed to also cause you to put the pistol on safe. This means there is a high likelihood of inadvertently placing the weapon on safe while clearing a malfunction, which is likely to occur due to the huge quantities of junk magazines in the military inventory.
The size and shape of the grip causes many shooters to push the pistol when squeezing the trigger. When diagnosing the problem, many assume that the soldiers are anticipating recoil and jerking the trigger, but it is often due to the size and shape of the pistol.
Some people shoot them well, but a very high percentage do not. They are difficult pistols to train shooters on.
If there is one weapon the military should replace, it is the M9.
The Army never wanted the M9. The marines were vehemently opposed to it. The Air Force wanted it. It failed a couple trials, with the SIG coming out on top and other pistols beating it in several Army and Marine Corps trials. But politics pushed it through, and we got an air base in Italy in exchange for the contract.

The M60A1 was still the standard issue GPMG, and again many were Vietnam returns and had been rebuilt more than once. I was never impressed with the M60...it was okay when it worked.

The M60s I used were fine, but the M240 is in a different class entirely. We used to fire 100% tracers in the M240C and very long bursts. Never killed a barrel. I honestly don't remember ever seeing a jam with the M240C, except a couple times with blanks and in incorrect blank adapter.
I have seen M240Bs jam with blanks a few times, and have seen one jam with live ammo due to absolutely no lubrication, but that is all.

and my nephew says the M249 SAW is "the bomb", he's played with them in both Kuwait and Afghanistan.

The Army says that the M249 is the weapon they are least happy with. I can say from experience that it is not as reliable as the M240, for sure. I think it is an example of the fact that simply scaling a weapon up or down for a different caliber does not always work perfectly, and can have unexpected results. I think the magwell for M16 mags is a poor idea. I have never seen or heard of it actually being used in combat, and if a SAW gunner needs to use M16 magazines, he might as well just pick up one of the rifles that are sure to be laying around at that point and use it.

The M14 based M21 was still the standard sniper rifle, but if you were lucky enough to get to go to the AMU you might get to shoot versions of the new "experimental" bolt gun that would become the M24 years later. Here, IMHO, is where the improvements in equipment have been astronomical, both in rifles, optical systems, and doctrine.

The big thing here is that we finally stopped being embarrassed of snipers. The US military since the Civil War has always used snipers in wartime and disowned them in peacetime. One of the reasons that Berdan's sharpshooters' uniforms are so rare today is because many soldiers who wore them got rid of them to hide the fact that they were sharpshooters. This was something that most did not brag about.
Americans are supposed to face down their enemies at high noon in the middle of main street like John Wayne. Americans are not supposed to hide with a rifle and shoot their enemies from the next mountain like cowards.
Also, soldiers who have faced the effectiveness of snipers in combat have always tended t have animosity toward any snipers, even their own.
All of this led the US military to discontinue sharpshooter/sniper programs between wars. This meant that each time we entered another war, we would have to dig up sniper equipment, train snipers, and learn everything all over again. Everything that was learned was forgotten between wars. Sniper equipment did not really advance.
In WWI, snipers used M1903 rifles with low-powered optics. By WWII, the rifles snipers were using were basically unchanged. If you look at early WWII sniper doctrine, it was ridiculous. Entering WWII, Army snipers were issued M1903A4 rifles and tracer rounds. The sniper was supposed to move slightly forward of his own lines, identify enemy soldiers, and fire tracers at their positions. Then all of the other infantrymen were to fire at the locations where the tracers hit. The snipers quickly realized the stupidity of this, got rid of their tracers, and became traditional snipers. The Marine Corps did not like the M1903A4 rifles, so they used M1903A1 rifles with a much better scope.
By Vietnam, the sniper programs had again been dismantled, and Army and Marine snipers were scrambling to learn everything all over again, and using a combination of military and civilian equipment, much acquired outside the "proper channels". Anyone know why some armorers kept spiders?
After Vietnam, the Marine Corps kept their sniper program active, but the Army dropped theirs for a while. Now we not only have a continuing sniper program, but for the first time since the 19th Century, we have a true designated marksman program.

Still, there are problems to b overcome. Many units are reluctant to support their snipers with the specialized equipment they need. Many regular infantrymen feel that it is unfair for snipers to get cool gadgets that they don't get. It can be hard to get units to order match ammo for their snipers, and some units blow off the SDM program, issuing their SDM rifles and optics to soldiers who show no motivation or proficiency for that position, and do not seek training for their SDMs.

We have come a long way, but like you said:

Is there still room for improvement....you betcha.

[MrMurphy]

Ironically, in history we bragged about the Kentucky riflemen in the Revolution, who acted as.........snipers.




I don't love the M9, though I own a 92FS, and it's big for the round it carries. Of the designs which actually competed, it survived the tests, as did the Sigs, and honestly having shot both neither is awesome. Some people shoot Sigs better, some don't, and the Sig design is far from perfect either. Of what was available at that exact time, both were solid choices and neither was perfect. Personally I think a Hi-Power Mk III would have solved the problem, since the Army doesn't like allowing their troops to have loaded ammo in the gun anyways... (our Security Forces people took a lot of stuff at clearing barrels when Army troops would try and make them unload their pistols. By USAF regulation, our M9's stayed loaded, chambered, and safety off any time they weren't locked in an armory). Compared to the Army's empty chamber+DA trigger+safety on in quite a few cases I personally know of......yeah..... Toss in the fact that the slide-mounted decocker/safety was actually mandated by the US Gov't. Early 92's had it on the frame, and the gun can be made to run with a frame safety (Taurus did it) pretty easily.


Optics, training and better-than-M855 ammo would fix most of the current issues, that and beating to death the long persistent 'training scars' like "M16s need to be run dry" and " carbon on the bolt tail will make the gun explode" or words to that effect or the ever-popular-USMC notion that if the gun actually has any parkerization left, it's not clean enough...

[2571]

" each man having a finely tuned bolt gun AS WELL AS a light weight, high capacity, select-fire gun"

We couldn't win in Korea and there the enemy didn't issue a firearm to each soldier.

[Bruce Scott]

Germany never used the FN, though almost every other country has (Britain and the colonies, most African countries, etc).
.

West Germany used the FN FAL (designated G1) for a short period in the late 1950s - early 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL

[MrMurphy]

Yes they did.

He was referring to the FN MAG 58 (British GPMG, our M240), which as far as I've ever seen, they did 'not'. They went from WW2 stuff, to US stuff, back to the MG1/MG2 and then MG3, all of which are MG42 derivatives. We were speaking strictly about machine guns.

[Bruce Scott]

Oops, missed that