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 ...
The select-fire feature was dropped from the BAR design fairly early. My Father-in-Law carried one in the Marines in Korea. Full-auto only.
What get's lost on threads like this about the virtues of this combat rifle or that round, is that the soldier and his rifle, combined with the training, makes for a complete weapons system.
We seem to accept this in more mechanized weaponry, but when the main component is flesh & blood we tend to forget.
SCAR in 6.8.
That’s all you need.
“Tough sh*t, pagans, BarBQ rules!”
hinckley buzzard; May 18, 2010
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2516164/posts)
Although the comment was not originally made in reference to jihadis, I would have to suggest that it applies...
;>)
Excellent point! If I remember correctly, the current 62 grain bullet will fracture at the cannelure if it impacts with enough velocity, which at least gives you two wound tracks from each hit. The M-16 will therefore have a better chance of getting the job done (in terms of terminal ballistics) in any given situation. Maybe we should at least look at putting M-4 buttstocks on flat top M-16s and split the difference (the Canadians have or had a model like that)...
Israel is transitioning over to their new Tavor rifle. It’s a bullpup configuration so it’s short enough for urban combat, but still has the longer barrel for accuracy. The interesting thing about it is the sight, which is built into the barrel. The sight and barrel are one unit. Haven’t seen one up close.
The Tavor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5Z5e8CUUM
Precision with a stock AK is not going to happen.
It's a decent platform IMO and with the right ammo it's plenty lethal out to 600 yards. The problem in the sandbox is our guys aren't using the correct ammo.
A 62 grain soft point bullet moving at 2000 fps makes a hell of a mess. The nice thing about being a civilian is that one isn't constrained by those stupid JAG rules that say only FMJ ammo can be used.
Is the .308 superior? No question it is. There are two .308 platforms in my safe. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to hump one up and down the mountains of Afghan land.
IMO, and no one listens to the likes of me, platoons and squads should carry a mixed bag of weapons. The majority of rifleman could have that M-4, but there should be at least a couple of 7.62 platforms on hand for designated marksmen.
And we have to get away from those stupid rules about the bullet. Replace that crappy SS-109 'penetrator' round with a soft point or hollow point. Screw the Hague Convention....
You want Ka-Boom!?
Moisin Nagant. 7.62 x 54.
Ka-Boom!
Never understood the wisdom in using a round considered underpowered for deer.
When did an AK-47 develope a greater effective range than an M-4?
I agree but the Loggies hold all the cards. They aren't going to introduce another infantry round to the TO&E of an infantry company. Special Forces, different story.
A lot of this arguement comes down to terrain. I live in hills. 300 yards is the next ridge...500 yards is the ridge after that, but you can't see it.
It's not the AK's that are the problem. The problem is the RPD and similar series of machine guns that are chambered in the 7.62 X 54R cartridge. They have a much longer effective range than our M4 rifles.
The Druganov series of 'precision' rifles are also chambered for that cartridge. While they can't hold a candle to a bolt action platform in terms of accuracy, they're plenty good enough to engage our guys outside their envelope of effective fire.
L
And the world’s supply of AK’s doesn’t include a great percentage of milled receivers, does it?
They are well suited to peasant insurgents who don’t have or need marksmanship training, not suited to well aimed shots at even 200 yards.
But one’s mileage may vary.
Even the sheetmetal receivers that I have are a potent threat at 300.
I have seen well trained soldiers unable to hit consistently at less than 200 yards, so yeah, the bullet may accidentally hit something at 300 years and is a potential threat.
They’re comparing the RPD to the M-4? We have the semi auto RPD for sale where I work. While I suppose that a very large insurgent could carry it uphill along with a couple of drums, it is essentially a crew served weapon.
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.