Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

joe6pack RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/20/2005 9:30:44 AM

"But doesn't using two rounds per target negate the whole idea of using lighter ammo? What benefit do you gain from carrying twice as many rounds that are equivalently only half as effective?" I don't think so, It seems likely (and I know I would) that most troops are going to use more than one round to engage an enemy regardless of the size of the round. Are you really saying you would completely trust your life to a single 6.8mm round? The idea of controlled pairs is a sound practice regardless if the ammo is 5.56, 6.8 or 7.62 for that matter. At least in my opinion. To answer your question, if you are using two rounds per target anyway, more ammunition at lighter weight is a plus.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/20/2005 9:41:50 AM

>>But doesn't using two rounds per target negate the whole idea of using lighter ammo? What benefit do you gain from carrying twice as many rounds that are equivalently only half as effective?<< No. Firing controlled pairs at the kinds of ranges CQC occurs at is not an aspect of the 5.56mm round, it is an aspect of that particular combat situation. A single round of any caliber -- 5.56mm, 6.8x43mm, 7.62x51mm, .45 ACP, etc -- may or may not drop a target. When the target is in the same room with you you don't have the time to take a chance on a single round, so you fire a pair of rounds at the target's center of mass. This is the fastest engagement method that provides high levels of lethality. I have not spoken to any of the guys who've done actual field trials with the 6.8x43mm round, but I'd be willing to be you a good deal of money that their CQC drills, to include controlled pairs, did not change at all when they switched from 5.56mm to the heavier round. I would, personally, use controlled pairs even with something truly heavy like .50 Beowulf or a 12 Gauge loading buckshot. With both it may very well be overkill, but, again, when the enemy is in the same room with you, overkill is preferable to the alternatives. >>I think that was the whole idea behind the Remington (6.8) and Grendel (6.5) ammunition: they each had sufficient take-down capability in one round.<< The idea with 6.8x43mm was to get a round that performed better than 5.56mm at medium range 2-400 or 500 meters, not to increase killing power at CQC range. 6.5 Grendel was designed to be a flat shooting, high-energy retention round for long-range deer and antelope hunting. It did not begin life with a military purpose at all. >>What edge do you have in combat when your 30 rounds of 5.56 only allows you 15 targets (assuming controlled pairs/double tapping each target) as opposed to a mag in 6.5/6.8 holding 26-28 rounds?<< A couple extra targets, since with either platform at close range you will be firing pairs of rounds. The heavier bullets don't earn their pay at CQC ranges, they earn them further out, where you might only get off a single round at a fleeting target. This is also where 7.62x51mm continues to be a useful and desirable round.

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/20/2005 10:04:21 AM

I'm not a grunt so I admit I have no experience in this subject, but doesn't it seem likely that even if equipped with 6.8 SPC soldiers would still be trained to use controlled pairs for clearing strutures? I understand it's axiomatic that no cartridge can be safely assumed to reliably deliver "one shot stops" and in close quarters like this you must use two rapid aimed shots for your own safety. Furthermore, to quickly dive into the realm of personal opinion, I'd bet some sort of rigorous scientific analysis (if such were possible) would show a controlled pair of 5.56mm is on average superior to a single round of 7.62mm (and hence very likely also a single round of 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel), as in these conditions the overall incapacitation effect from two 5.56mm bullets rapidly delivered at close range to center of mass on average is greater than that produced from one 7.62mm. Undoubtedly anecdotal evidence exists on both sides of specific examples to the contrary, but I'm talking about what best achieves the desired result on average. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/20/2005 10:06:04 AM

D'oh! I should have checked for updates after I came back to my PC with my Mountain Dew but before I typed my last comment! Displacedjim

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Double Tap & War crimes 12/22/2005 3:53:25 PM

As I always undestood it, a double-tap means to fire a second shot into a wounded enemy soldier as you advance to insure that he is dead (and will not shoot you in the back after you pass by). Depending on the circumstances, this could be a war crime. If the enemy soldier is wounded, but still armed and able, it would not be a crime. If the enemy soldier is helpless, it would be. As has been pointed out, this is largely left to the discretion of the individual soldier (as most armies would would rather not have a soldier hesitate or second guess himself). Perhaps you will recall that widely circulated news story last summer of the soldier who was video-taped shooting an unarmed wounded soldier. Although there was a great deal of controversy over it, the military declined to take any action against the soldier, who clearly thought the individual was moving, and had recently been wounded himself by a wounded enemy who had been playing dead. This was a pretty good example. As for our auto-fire discussion, 100-round drums are available for the M-16. Shrek, I don't consider this a false-dichotomy at all. You assume that all the pieces will be in place and function properly. In the real world, this is often the exception, rather than the rule. Maybe your SAW-gunner gets wounded, isolated, pinned down, out of position, whatever...a little redundancy would certainly go a long way. Okay, you can call in a JDAM. How long will that take, two minutes? Suppose you don't have two minutes? It takes one second to switch the selector to full-auto. My point of bringing up the Battle of Mogadishu was to illustrate the point that you don't always have what you need, when you need it. As they say, no plan ever survived first contact. A full-auto option on an M-16 is a cheap and easy way to give a soldier options. You could still train & require those soldiers to fire single aimed shots and/or train them about which situations are appropriate for auto-fire. Simply put, auto-fire is a tool. Any tool can be useful or not depending on how it is used. Okay, you don't an E-1 with autofire? Fine, don't give him auto-fire. What about your E-4 who knows what's what? Like I said, it's an option, not a mandate.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Moot point & New Direction 12/22/2005 4:02:57 PM

Actually, the whole subjects of this thread, the M-16 being replaced, is a moot point now that the XM-8 was cancelled. link Let's change the spin of things just a bit. If you could create the ideal assault rifle for the US military, what would it be like? Would you continue using 5.56mm ammo or go larger? Continue to use high-powered ammo or go low-powered? Spring-loaded or gas-operated? Since this is theoretical, feel free to wild... Is there anything out there close to what you wanted?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/22/2005 5:05:27 PM

>>If you could create the ideal assault rifle for the US military, what would it be like? Would you continue using 5.56mm ammo or go larger? Continue to use high-powered ammo or go low-powered? Spring-loaded or gas-operated? Since this is theoretical, feel free to wild... Is there anything out there close to what you wanted? << Current technology -- HK M416 or FN SCAR-L would get my vote for off the shelf systems that are pretty much ready to go (though as an ideal I might prefer switching over to 6.8x43mm Rem SPC to improve lethality out past usual assault rifle ranges), coupled with an ACOG and EOTech. And a pistol as secondary, preferably the new HK 45 which is, hopefully, going to replace the Beretta sooner rather than later (I don't have a problem with the 9x19mm round, but the Beretta is a POS). Near future technology? OICW with bulk and weight suitably reduced, length of pull reworked into something that looks more user friendly, and the rifle component issued with some sort of attachable stock for CQB situations where you don't need the airbursting grenade launcher capability but do need a shoulder-fired long gun.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/22/2005 10:41:37 PM

Perhaps you will recall that widely circulated news story last summer of the soldier who was video-taped shooting an unarmed wounded soldier. Although there was a great deal of controversy over it, the military declined to take any action against the soldier, who clearly thought the individual was moving, and had recently been wounded himself by a wounded enemy who had been playing dead. This was a pretty good example. Exactly. The video is the most favorable piece of evidence in support of the soldier. It clearly shows that he made a totally conscious decision that the wounded insurgent posed a threat. If it had been a cold, calculated, and reflexive decision to murder the insurgent, then he would have fired at all the insurgents as quickly as possible as soon as he entered the mosque ? he didn?t. As for our auto-fire discussion, 100-round drums are available for the M-16. The issue isn?t magazine capacity, although I?ve heard that the 100 round drums suck, but rather ammunition carried. Basic load is still 210 rounds. More rounds can be carried, but you?re competing with body armor, mission essential equipment, and water. At the ammunition basic load of 210 rounds, with semi-automatic fire, you have 210 separate engagements, with three round burst, you have 70 potential engagements, and with full auto and bursts of 5-10 rounds, you have 21-42 potential engagements until you are out of ammunition. Shek, I don't consider this a false-dichotomy at all. Here?s the false dichotomy that you have been arguing for throughout the thread. It might not have been crystal clear in the last post, but it had been in previous posts.

Again, if you don't feel like automatic weapons have a place on the battlefield, then give up your M-249's. You sincerely can't argue you don't need auto-fire and then build a squad around one.

Here?s the definition of false dichotomy:

False dichotomy... - The logical fallacy of false dilemma, also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, is to set up two alternative points of view as if they were the only options, when they are not.

Your argument apparently leaves a choice of no automatic weapons in a rifle platoon or, if you want SAWs, then you must also have full auto for your M16. Clearly, that is a false choice as it omits other possible options. You assume that all the pieces will be in place and function properly. In the real world, this is often the exception, rather than the rule. Maybe your SAW-gunner gets wounded, isolated, pinned down, out of position, whatever...a little redundancy would certainly go a long way. Okay, you can call in a JDAM. How long will that take, two minutes? Suppose you don't have two minutes? It takes one second to switch the selector to full-auto. My point of bringing up the Battle of Mogadishu was to illustrate the point that you don't always have what you need, when you need it. As they say, no plan ever survived first contact. You?re correct, no plan survives contact. However, the scenario you?ve just painted means you have: 1) no mutual support beyond the fire team level 2) no communications to call for fire from your organic company mortars, the artillery supporting your battalion/brigade, or the emergency or strip alert CAS 3) no warning of the Mongolian horde that escaped detection from the UAV that is organic to your company, the UAV that is organic to your battalion, the UAV that is organic to the brigade, the UAVs and other sensor platforms that are organic to the theater, and other national assets, meaning that your isolated fire team is now in danger of being completely overrun Next, I gave you two counterarguments for Mogadishu, neither of which you have addressed. 1) Shughart and Gordon were killed not because they were overrun with loads of Somalis, but because they were black on ammo. Had they used full auto, they would have run out of ammo quicker and thus, been killed quicker. 2) The Rangers were not overrun, and giving them full auto would have led to faster ammo consumption and a greater possibility of being overrun due to an increased risk of running out of ammo. Mogadishu reinforces that semi-automatic with three round burst is a fully appropriate and desirable solution for the modern battlefield for the US military. A full-auto option on an M-16 is a cheap and easy way to give a soldier options. You could still train & require those soldiers to fire single aimed shots and/or train them about which situations are appropriate for auto-fire. Not sure what units you have been in, but I never had the number of bullets I wanted in order to train my company, and I went many rounds above and beyond the STRAC requirements. General Schoomaker increased the STRAC requirements, which is

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/23/2005 4:26:22 PM

If you could create the ideal assault rifle for the US military, what would it be like? I rather favor the ten or twelve gauge shotgun. Opps, thats not a rifle. Sorry.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/23/2005 9:36:36 PM

Actually, Carl, a semi-auto .410 with 00 buckshot (double-aught) would be a hell of a room-clearing/CQB gun. Wonder if anyone ever thought of just such an upper for the "common" M16 lower receiver assembly...? Shucks, even .410 slugs would have very favorable performance: depending on bullet composition and propellant load, effectively you'd have a carbine equivalent approaching the power of a .44magnum handgun (go ahead, punk, if you feel lucky). I seriously doubt there are very many people in the battle area that would still remain standing in fighting composure after taking a round center-mass from that (and it wouldn't quite take up as much volume/weight/recoil as a .50 Beowulf)... But a 10 gauge? DAMN! Why not go all out and bring back the .58 Minie ball? Those things were lethal against horses out to 600 yards (cavalry: Civil War records indicate the round could take out both the rider and his mount, so close quarters against people should be no problem...providing you can manufacture them as cartridge ammo for a self-loading rifle...but they'd take up as much room as a 12 gauge 3" round!). Some time ago (within the past couple years), I read that the USCG was evaluating an upper receiver in .499 Leitner Weiss (sp?) for its boarding parties and small patrol craft personnel, but I haven't really looked into it lately.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT