US rifles not suited to long range combat in Afghanistan

[TheMightyFavog]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10707413

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.

And the military's only figuring out that pushing the 5.56mm standard on NATO back in the 60s was a mistake only NOW?

Bring back 7.62.

[Kingofalldems]

1. Do you mean M-1s? M-14s?

[TheMightyFavog]

3. M1 was 30.06 IIRC...

Really powerful round. Around here, it's the gold standard for large game hunting.

[Deep13]

2. Right, you need a 30 cal. M-14 for that.

Some of us have been saying so for years. The 5.56mm M-4 carbine is for about 200 or 300 yards. The 5.56mm M-16 rifle is good for about 600 maybe.

[Dank Nugs]

4. The AK-47 is far more superior.. n/t

[Recursion]

7. Eh. They get romanticized, but they have problems

Their main advantages are that they're cheap, there's millions of them, and a guy can make one in his garage. That and you can bury it for 20 years, dig it up when the government collapses, and it still works. But you need that banana clip because you can't hit the broad side of a barn with it (particularly if it's one a guy made in his garage). But, yeah, there's a reason lots of flags have an AK-47 on them while to my knowledge none have an M-16.

[Greyhound]

15. There are match grade AK's, but cheap, reliable, and fast to make are

the reasons they exist.

[Old Troop]

36. I agree and don't forget the ruptured cartridge extractor issued with

each weapon. It sucks in a firefight to have to find your handy little tool to clear a stoppage.

[formercia]

11. This is what you need:

338 Lapua sniper.

[Schema Thing]

28. pic not showing up, but if that isn't a picture of a flower..

You aren't a Democrat :evilgrin:

[formercia]

34. Site being blocked

It was a Russian site. Someone was not happy.

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvtrACBT_JM&NR=1

Good for keeping a low profile.

[Regret My New Name]

54. here is his picture

[Greyhound]

13. Did you really just write "far more superior'?

Dude...

[Dank Nugs]

19. To be fair..

Sorry about the poor grammar/syntax. I'm working out in the yard, rebuilding my porch deck and have a little bit of herb to help along the process. Either way, I'm arguing it's superiority because it's durable and can be used in all kinds of combat conditions, plus it's exchangeable with other ammo calibre. If that AK-47 were packed with mud/sand/dirty it would fire without a problem. I'll take reliability and ability to use other size ammo over them.

[Lagomorph]

24. What other ammo?

The AK fires 7.62x39 or 5.45x39, depending on the model. That's it. There is no American military ammo that will function in an AK. Never has been.

AK is a good 200 yard rifle. The M4 is a good 300 yard rifle. With it's larger bullet, the 7.62x39 AK packs more "knock down" power than the M4 at close ranges. For longer ranges, the Taliban are using British Enfields in .303 cal and the U.S. is using 7.62x51 or larger. Both sides have access the Barrett .50 cal rifles, as the U.S. provided them during the Soviet War. The Taliban Barretts are probably suffering from old age, though. There are a number of other weapons in Afghanistan that have found their way through the arms market.

[ieoeja]

33. And it does that because it is built to poor tolerances.

I never know whether to call it low tolerances because it isn't built to a high degree of accuracy, or high tolerances because tolerance is actually a measurement of how inaccurate it is allowed to be built.

Bottom line: AK47s can shoot packed with mud because the bullet has wobble room. That gives you the mudpacked shooting capability, but what sort of accuracy are you going to get with a wobbly bullet? Answer: really bad.

So the AK47 is even *less* suited to long-distance shooting.


In fact, until recently the Taliban was having problems because they had gotten used to using the AK47. They found themselves being picked off by NATO fire long before they could get close enough for the AK47 to be effective. The elders finally convinced the young fighters to switch back to homegrown weaponry and engage NATO in like fashion.

This let them push the distances even further. From what I read NATO can still shoot accurately at this distance, but it loses too much power to be effective because of the small caliber.

[Tesha]

42. Call them "loose tolerances" and "tight tolerances". (NT)

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. That's hysterically funnily hilarious.

Since we're in repetitiously iterative redundancy mode, n' all.

[FarCenter]

17. The M-14 is superior to the AK-47 with a heavier bullet and higher muzzle velocity

7.62 x 51 NATO, used in the M-14, is nominally a 147 grain bullet at 2,756 feet per second muzzle velocity.

7.62 x 39 mm used in the AK-47 is nominally a 120 grain bullet at 2,300 feet per second

The long range version of the NATO cartidge uses a 175 grain boat-tail bullet for more range and accuracy.

It is commercially available as the .308 Winchester cartridge.

Afghans and Pakistanis used to copy the Lee Enfield whose .303 British cartridge was 150 grain, 2770 fps.

The .300 Winchester Magnum or .300 H&H Magnum are still more powerful yet, with 175 grain bullets and close to 3000 fps performance.

[Ikonoklast]

39. Wrong.

You show a lack of firearm knowledge stating this as a fact.

Cheap to produce using stampings instead of machined parts or forgings also result in a not very accurate field-grade weapon.

[Gaedel]

43. AK-47 is a short range rifle like the M16.

You need something in 7.62mm NATO like the M14 or a modern lightweight version. The question really isn't the weight of the rifle itself, it is the weight of the ammo. A grunt can carry a lot more rounds of 5.56mm than he can of 7.62mm NATO.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Do you say that because you play too many video games?

Or because you watch too much History Channel?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Not really. The ballistics are poor and accuracy worse in many cases

[NutmegYankee]

75. Vs an M14 for range. Not a chance in hell nt

[Richard Steele]

83. You clearly have no idea of which you speak, and thus appear foolish to those who do.

nm

[Toots]

91. not for distances over three hundred meters.

While it does have the 7.62 mm round it has very little powder. It has much better knock down power at close range though and it hardly ever jams up.

[Recursion]

5. A 5.56 carbine would have been great

Trying to make a bastard son of a carbine and a battle rifle was a horrible idea then, and still is now (people thought it would be both; in the event it was neither).

IMO we pretty clearly need a 7.62mm battle rifle, issued in large numbers, and we have for some time. Issue some updated version of the M-14 (which unfortunately will take about 10 years to acquire, our processes being what they are), and either a carbine like the M-4 or a submachinegun (if it's good enough for the IDF...) for CQW.

[Johnyawl]

12. Why would we have to aquire new ones?

The military still uses the M-14 in limited roles, and I believe, still has the 1 million+ that they aquired prior to 1964 in armories. I have not heard that they have been surplused.

From Wikipedia: M14 production tooling was sold in 1967 to the Republic of China (Taiwan), who in 1968 began producing their Type 57 Rifle. The State Arsenal of the Republic of China produced over 1 million of these rifles from 1969 to the present under model numbers of M305 and M14S.

We can just buy them from Taiwan.

[Lagomorph]

27. During the Clinton adminstration....

our President had large numbers of stockpiled small armed shredded, including tens of thousands of M-14's and M-16's.

[tabasco]

48. Link?

Very interesting.

[Lagomorph]

68. Here ya go...

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/co_publi_pdf/2004/2004-01-OSCE_USA.pdf

"Initially, the US Armed Forces destroyed large quantities of these newly surplus
weapons, including 479,367 M14 rifles in 1993–94 and roughly 350,000 M16A1 rifles in
1996."

[tabasco]

92. Nobody's gonna miss the A1's.

Too bad about the M14s.

[Lagomorph]

93. The A1 was...

a good rifle for the jungle and even Europe where woodlands are common and the enemy was not wearing body armor.

In the desert or open terrain, it's shortcomings become apparent. WWII rifles that could shoot 1000 yards or more have a big advantage.

I don't know a one size fits all rifle, although the FAL would probably come close.

With .308 you're looking at carrying 120-150 rounds vs. 240-300 5.56.

If they're going to be out running around in the hills on foot, chasing insurgents, they might want to consider dropping some of the body armor. Go with just a smaller chest plate and helmet.

[tabasco]

95. A1 was a piece of shit.

The A2 with the heavier barrel and adjustment knobs was a dramatic improvement.

[Lagomorph]

96. I dunno...

As long as we were using 55gr ammo, the A1 was a light, set-it and forget-it rifle. When they went to the A2 and the 62gr ammo they gave up the 55gr's terminal ballistics for the sake of the penetrator and the bullet's light weight proved that you could either have terminal effects or penetration, but not both.

The A2 was a much better rifle, technically, but far from ideal. Beyond 300 yards, it couldn't really carry the fight to the enemy. You could hit them, but that would just piss them off and they'd send a 7.62 back at you.

[mwrguy]

22. updated version of the M-14 - they already did that

Enhanced Battle Rifle

[slackmaster]

6. During Gulf War I I saw a news photo of a US soldier riding in a tank...

There was an M60 machine gun mounted behind him. He was holding a bolt-action Mauser rifle.

[wtmusic]

8. Civilians and "insurgents" both look pretty much the same at 500M

7.62 would eliminate all of those messy "identification" issues.

[oneshooter]

14. Right, we should only issue rifles in 22 Short to our troops.

Do you really know anything about the subject?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[wtmusic]

16. I know it's harder to ID an enemy at 500M than 100M. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Telescopic sights and binoculars...

A mere 10X optic makes something 1000yds away look like it's 100yds away (roughly) and easy to ID.
Not to mention, when bastards 500+ yards away are armed and shotting at you or your friends... they're enemies. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

52. Like the guy with the camera ("AK-47") in the Apache video

who the gunner turned into red mist? He wasn't even 300 yards away. Gotcha. :eyes:

[Fumesucker]

55. If I recall correctly Pat Tillman was considerably closer than 500 yards

And shouting "I'm Pat fucking Tillman" when he was killed by "friendly fire".

Of course I'm not entirely convinced that his killing wasn't deliberate.

[FreakinDJ]

9. article is full of shit - nobody is fighting at 600 - 800 yards

They might be "Retreating" at those kinds of distances and laying down a little cover fire, but neither AK-47s nor M-4s are designed to work well in that range

I think the author got a little excited and over embellished the story

[FarCenter]

20. I would think that the Taliban would prefer 7.62 Russian, 7.62 NATO or .303 British

For both long range and for defeating body armor at closer range.

.303 British has been produced locally, and the Pakistan army uses 7.62 NATO.

[wmbrew0206]

25. The max effective range of the M-4 is around 950 meters

The terrain in Afghanistan is conducive to long rifle shots. I don't think the standard Marine or soldier is going to hit anything past 500 yards, but there are a lot of chances to shoot at the Taliban at those distances.

[Gaedel]

44. Back in the day of the M-1 Garand

With the M-1 Garand, we used to have a station during annual range qualification where you fired at 500 yards prone slow fire.

100 yards standing-slow fire
200 yards kneeling slow fire
200 yards standing to sitting-rapid fire
300 yards sitting-slow fire
300 yards standing to prone-rapid fire
500 yards prone-slow fire

Still hear the "zing-clink" of the empty Garand clip ejecting from the rifle.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. False

Official Army Stats for the M-4

Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 500 meters
Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 600 meters

[ManiacJoe]

53. Are you sure those stats are not for the M16 ?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. Yes, quite sure.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m4/m4-study-guide.shtml

[wmbrew0206]

65. Where did 3,600 meters come from?

Not to be argumentative, but that is a very long distant for a 5.56 round. If I remember correctly the max effective range for a .50 is around 1800 meters and that is with tracer rounds.

I'm not saying that a 5.56 round could not reach that far from an elevated position but you would have to be one hell of a marksmen to hit anything at that range. The reason snipers don't use a 5.56 round is that is so light that the bullets flight path is easily manipulated by the wind and moisture of the environment causing the predictability of the rounds impact to be way too imprecise.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. IIRC max range is the distance it could still do damage. Its used for safety calculations not combat

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Max range is the lenth a bullet will travel in a ballistic trajectory

effective range is how far it can go and still do damage.

For the M-4 the effective range is 900 meters or so, it's max range, is 3600 meters. Penetration value at max range is effectively zero.

Yes, I had to learn this for like real and shit.

by the way the penetration value is based on mass plus speed out of the barrel, it is basic physics and most people never get it right. Not even gun nuts.

Disclaimer, no I am not a gun nut, but for survival purposes at shootouts, it was a good idea to know this shit... so I could stage my people in safe locations. It is also a good thing to know that some ammo will have less pen value than others, due to that speed out of muzzle. for example, the colt 45 has a hell of a knock down value, but LOUSY pen value, why it is preferred by many cops over the 9 mmm, which tends to fly farther and penetrate farther... see speed out of muzzle.

Here you go more info

http://firearmspedia.com/maximum-effective-range/

Shit one learns due to the war on drugs...

:-)

Oh and here is the definition per DOD

The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect.
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

For the M-16 it is 550 meters.

[Lagomorph]

69. They use...

.303 Enfields and just plink away from distance. But yes, they do shoot at that distances.

[Greyhound]

10. NS. It all goes back to the development of what became the M-16.

The Generals took a brilliant design and fucked it up with completely useless requirements.

The .223 just doesn't have the mass, you can throw it as fast as you like, friction and gravity will quickly consume all the energy, it's basic physics.

Anyone know if they're using DU for the 5.56? That would help a bit.

[MicaelS]

29. C'mon DU in a 62 grain .22 bullet???

What are you going to have? 30 grains of DU? The standard SS109/M855 round already has a steel penetrator. What the troops need is long range, and DU is not going to supply that.

[Edweird]

31. I always thought the 'brown tips' were DU, but they aren't.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

[Enrique]

18. the war has only been going on for 9 years

we're in the early stages of it, so we're only starting to figure out what to do.

[greencharlie]

23. lol for the humor effect.... tears for the truth of it ;)

[undeterred]

21. Maybe we should pick an enemy we're a better match for.

:hide:

[wmbrew0206]

26. The M-4 was never meant to be a long range weapon.

The 5.56 round and the shorten barrel on the weapon is meant for close combat. There was a study done a while back and it stated that over 80% of incidents where a soldier fired his weapon in combat it was at a distance of less then 75 yards. The M-4 was meant to handle that reality.

The terrain in Afghanistan makes it tough to get that close and so the M-4 is having a hard time being effective. However, anytime you are shooting over 400 yards, you should be using a crew served weapon which are 7.62 or .50 cal.

[old mark]

30. Some Special Operations groups use the M-14 extensively. The M-14 is still in US

arsenals-since the mid 1960's. They were never released for sale to the public as were earlier US military rifles. They are very effective weapons at much longer range than the 5.56mm round. We should also bring back the old M-60 machinegun to replace the current SAW . The M-60 uses the same 7.62x51 cartridge as the M-14, and has the same range and power.

Might want to bring back the old 1911 .45 ACP pistol, too, or a modern version using that caliber.
But that's just my opinion...


mark

[Gaedel]

45. For a good reason

"They were never released for sale to the public as were earlier US military rifles."

It only takes a little six-inch piece of steel called a "selector" that you can make in a high school machine shop to turn the M14 into a full auto weapon.

[cliffordu]

63. Which is completely useless....they are completely uncontrollable in full auto

Or at least the one I fired was.....

[old mark]

79. Yes. I qualified on both the M14 and the M-16 in the old days.

The M-16 is much easier to carry around and to learn to shoot well, IMO.


mark

[cliffordu]

81. I trained with both but used an M-14 in the field.....

[Gaedel]

87. M14 Original Concept

The ordinary Joe Snuffy was to have the semi-auto version only (so the dumb f*** wouldn't shoot up all of his ammo). The selector was only to be provided to the M14s with the heavy barrel and bipod which were serving in the old BAR role. The extra selectors were to be kept in the unit arms room and issued only when the CO saw a need for them.

If you fired in three round burst, you could control the M14 in full auto. If you blew off a full mag, it was all over the place.

[Edweird]

32. Perfect for small game. As a main battle rifle... not so much.

When your life depends on a round that deflects when going through brush or drywall or a car door, you're pretty much screwed. A wounded adversary can still kill you. The 7.62 tends to take the fight right out of them. The M1A is the shit.

In most states you aren't allowed to use the .223 on deer because it's too wimpy to kill reliably. Too weak for Bambi and we're supposed to use it on someone trying to kill us?

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. 600-800 meters is very distant

Here's a video of a marksman with a mosin nagant sniper rifle shooting an 18" target from 1000 yards (914m). The arc of the bullet "drop" is 31 feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2M1hC4c0tc&feature=PlayList&p=EA4730ABE42C5B9A&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=27

[Duende azul]

38. That`s so great about DU. Progressive experts in every field to be found.

So what armament would you guys and gals recommend to for example execute a family - eh sorry, some enemy combatants - gathered in a house or at a wedding?

[alfredo]

40. KFC Double Down

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Mossberg 500. Or maybe an ax. Depends on what the enemy/family is fielding.

There's a difference between being progressive and being ignorant.

[Regret My New Name]

58. It's fun to poke people with sticks.

[JVS]

66. Predator Drone!

[Decoy of Fenris]

89. Nuke.

:sarcasm: , just in case. :P

[ManiacJoe]

51. Must be a slow news day.

The army new the M4 was a short range rifle when that started deploying it a few years back.

For longer ranges (100-500 yards), the M16 with its 20 inch barrel is needed. Any rifle using .308 ammo will also get the job done.

[Bonobo]

56. How it sickens me to see this shit on DU.

The other day it was a porno-orgy talk-fest about artillery and now you all are gushing over rifles.


BLEEEEEAAAARRRRHHHH!!!
:puke: :puke: :puke:

[ManiacJoe]

59. If highly technical threads do not interest you,

feel free to skip them.

[Bonobo]

64. I will "feel free" to do what I like.

Including saying that it makes me sick.

[wmbrew0206]

67. FYI, for this is a VERY big issue for the military. Not quite a Row v Wade, but close.

I am hoping to describe the importance of this issue within the military and with people who hunt.

The decision to switch over from the Vietnam 7.62 round to the NATO 5.56 round was a very controversial decision within the military. The 5.56 round is much less powerful and is not what a lot of the people in the military wanted. However the need to have the same ammunition as our fellow NATO allies drove the decision. The logistic requirement of having two separate requirements for ammo should NATO forces have to go to war was the decider.

The 7.62 round is the round that marksmen wanted due to the predictability of its flight path. It is a heavier round which gives it greater accuracy but also means that it takes greater effort to transport them. Logistics is the heart of warfare and the lighter round and greater numbers of them won the day.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

73. Thats OK, I feel the same way about the vegan threads

[X_Digger]

74. And Michael Jackson, and PETA, and Susan Boyle, and Roman Polanski, and.. hehe, n/t

[Nailzberg]

80. There's plenty of crap here I don't feel like reading, either. Hide Thread button works great.

There are many democratic vets and active military, and DU boards reflect that, just look at how many DU'ers use a service ribbon for an avatar.

Seeing as all branches of our military use the M4, its of great interest to members that the effectiveness of the primary infantry weapon of our troops is being called into question during a war.

You have every right to not share interest in every topic. But at the same time, its the same as if we were discussing troops and humvees without armor - properly equipping our military forces is a very relevant topic to discuss because it saves soldiers lives.

[miscsoc]

60. I have no idea what the fuck anyone is talking about here

although I find it reassuring that there are plenty of left wing gun nuts out there somewhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. There be a large number of us

Some are vets, some are cops, some none of the above. We support all of the rights in the BOR and reject the racist and classist arguments made by the Brady Bunch and certain mayors

[slampoet]

61. OMG the Poodle Shooter arguement from the 60's is finally getting settled for the BIG AMMO side?

I mean hasn't the Soldier of Fortune crowd been arguing about this for what 50 years?

[cliffordu]

62. Yep. 7.62 rules for long shots.

there are better boutique rounds, but for everyday grunt work in open spaces...the 7.62 is da bomb.

Shore wish I had my M-14 from the southeast asian war games. Shaw 'Nuff....

[Swamp Rat]

71. Nothing is 'suited' for log range combat in Afghanistan.

The USA will never 'win' in Afghanistan, no matter what type of guns we use. NEVER!



Actually, we already lost.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Hell for all I care we could go back to the .... gladius

or other short swords used by Greek Troops under Alexander the Great...

:-)

Same result actually, that is why it is called the graveyard of empires.

[Greyhound]

84. Thanks for bringing it back to the real issue. n/t

[Lagomorph]

94. How do you judge that?

Are we talking politics or combat? If a soldier walks off the airplane at home with two arms & two legs, he wins.

[guitar man]

76. Yup

For consistent accuracy at longer ranges you can't beat a 7.62 or 30-06. The m-14 or m1 garand excelled at longer ranges. And hell, if you're not hung up on rate of fire, an 03A3 30-06 is a real accurate way to reach out and touch someone. I wouldn't mind an 8mm Mauser for the long range stuff either ;)

[Hempathy]

82. The British troops had the same problem with the American insurgents...

our terrorists(oops..."freedom fighters") had muskets that had longer barrels that were also rifled on the inside, and were much better long-range marksmen than the British- who also weren't accustomed to the guerrilla tactics employed by the colonial militias, which included killing officers first- something that just wasn't done in civilized, gentlemanly warfare.

[cornermouse]

85. Another excuse to spend more money and grow China's economy...

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

88. We have a modern solution: SCAR- Heavy (SCAR-H, Mk 17 Mod 0)

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



Of course, older 7.62 NATO models like the M-14 and FALs would work too, but its time to put the SCAR-H into widespread use if the 5.56 isn't quite enough.

[galileoreloaded]

90. Mark 19 EOM. n/t