Skip to comments.US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
Posted on 05/22/2010 11:58:33 AM PDT by too_cool_for_skool
KABUL, Afghanistan 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Bring back the M14!
Give them back the Browning Automatic Rifle, the M-14, and the M-60.
This story seems to get dragged out once very six months
Just tell them to get the Israeli Galil. That thing takes a beating in the desert and keeps on shooting.
No, rechamber the M-4 to fire the 6.5mm X 39mm round.
For close in work nothing beats a Thompson.BAR with a cut down barrel aint bad either.
When targets presents themselves at very long ranges of fields of fire the M4s will be inadequate.
Absolutely, and it’s bunk. A 5.56mm round from an M4 will still perforate 1/8” plate steel at 500 meters. if it’ll go through steel plate at that distance, it’ll go through a combatant at that range (most of the combatants encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan do not wear body armor). Is it as potent at a 30-06 or 7.62x51? No, but it’s still carrying the energy and power of a 45 ACP “up close and personal” (like 7 yards). A single shot may not kill your target, but they are going to have a VERY bad day.
The issue isn’t the firepower packed by the soldiers, it’s the insane ROE that limits return fire. If you didn’t see the fire coming from a given individual - even if they have a weapon slung on their shoulder - you cannot return fire. Perfect ROE for the enemy to take a pot shot and go back to goat-herding, unopposed.
The new snipers will be charged with long-distance observation, predominantly, to keep an eye out - well out - for the very situation where a 600m away goat-herder takes a single pot-shot and re-shoulders his weapon before the round strikes or is heard. Having spotters dedicated to extreme range only - and equipped to return accurate fire at that range - is the only thing that has any chance of working with the current ROE.
The M1 Garand did pretty well in the hills and mountains of Italy in WW2... And had a good power punch.. Ok I am biased.. I love my Garand.
I’d be happy to let em try out my Socom .308...
I used to think that then I got to shoot an FN SCAR in 7.62. It is awesome, isn’t that heavy, mounts optics that are a pain on the M-14, has a folding stock which is nice for getting in and out of vehicles. Way nicer than the M-14 in the Sage stock.
give them Napalm, and the delivery system for it
let them have BBQ’s
Flame Throwers and Zippo Tracks too.
I love the M-4. It’s so much better for someone like me with short little arms.
Just like in Saving Ryans Privates. “DONT SHOOT EM,LET EM BURN”!
Is it cheaper to rework a receiver and replace a barrel than to purchase a new rifle chambered for another round? I don’t think the round you suggest has much greater range than does the 5.56.
Clinton order over fifty thousand of our M-14s destroyed while he was president even thought the NATO 7.62 was and still is an excellent round. My preference is the 30.06 cartridge if a new round is chosen to extend a rifleman’s reach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.