U.S.’s 5.56mm rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills.

[imschur]

Source: Yahoo News

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.

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.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.

"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.

"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."

The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

___

Associated Press correspondent Sebastian Abbot in Lako Khel, Afghanistan contributed to this report.

[survivalshop]

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

Is this guy trying to get the 6.5 or 6.8 into the mix ? I know the 6.8 fans would like to hear that .

The 7.62x51 would still be my choice in an AR type platform . Not saying the 6. what ever ,round is not a good round ,but you will put it at the edge of its termanal ballistics also .

The 7.62x51 gives you some room.

[98Z5V]

Personally, I don't think a 6-anything would gain any widespread use in the military - too much resistance to change, too much money wrapped up in ammo that's already in warehouses.  No joke.  Use in a few specialized units?  Sure.  <thumbsup>

I had Mk262 in all my mags over there, just for the M4.  I sure as hell wish I had the SR-25 instead, though.  Too much distance over there, in the mountains.  5.56 wasn't the ideal round.  7.62 will get it done, in almost all the mountainous regions.

[imschur]

I keep saying it 7.62x51 and .45acp. They keep searching for answers they already know. Maybe they could work on reducing recoil.

[Matt.Cross]

I keep saying it 7.62x51 and .45acp. They keep searching for answers they already know.

Right on man... I think history could teach our military a few lessons about the impact those two rounds have had on our winning streak with regard to wars fought. I'd like to see how the 7.62/308 stacks up against the 5.56/223 in rounds expended to enemies killed. I think it would be interesting to see how the 7.62 round fared against the 5.56 in say, Vietnam, where the 5.56 has a nice 50,000 rounds per enemy killed, according to U.S. Defense statistics. Same for the .45, I'd encourage anyone to talk to some LEO's or Paramedics about the differences in lethality between the .45 and a 9mm for instance. In this case I'm thinking of a 1911-style weapon that the military used to issue vs. the more modern M9's, Glocks, and S&W's that are issued to personnel.

Basically the whole point of this rant is that I'd love to see our boys in uniform carrying stuff that's a little more likely to land OPFOR in a dirt-nap than what they're currently carrying, although, I gotta say they're doing an inimitable job with what they've got.

[survivalshop]

The problem with the 9MM is not the round ,its the projectile . The 9MM does quite well with HV HP's . The fmj is just a hole puncher, yes you have a lot of them in modern mags , but you got to hit the right spot .

We all know the military will not use HP ammo because of the Geniva convention . I would like to see those same tests with the new offerings of 45 ACP . The new XDM 4.5 in 45ACP will be on dealer shelf next month & 13+1 is my kind of hand cannon.

The whole thing about ,how much ammo you can carrie is moot, because with out support to replenish it you will be fighting hand to hand in short order in an extended fire fight or get out of Dodge!

The M14 had its draw backs , light full bore combat rifle for its day & with its semi pistol grip wood stock , it was not set up for full auto . Now compare it to the BAR , the weight of the BAR made it controlable .

The FN with proper training can be fired from full auto & controlable ,with its more straight line stock & pistol grip.

Ya know the M16 is light and humping it around the jungle was like you had nothing in your hand ,but that rifle, because of a lot of reasons back then ,killed a lot of our troops just by not working.

I don't remember any one telling me that carried the M1 Garrand in WWII ,in the jungle,that it was too heavy or you could not carrie enough ammo . In a sustained fire fight ammo is always going to be a problem , that's what logistics is for .

[SWshooter]

They may not tell you, but alot of them picked up the first M1 carbine or M3 grease gun they found. Audie Murphy preferred the carbine and did pretty well with it, but he would have done better with an M4. I would hate to have to una$$ a humvee carrying a full size M14. I carried an M60 on and off choppers and in and out of 113's and it was a royal pain in the butt, not to mention the ammo. Ammo is a problem because an extra 40 or 60 rds can make the difference between living to fight another day and not. The military has done a piss poor job of supplying our troops with the best small arms available from the 1700's right up to today. Both the AR and the M14 designs are antiquated and so are the rounds they fire. Our troops should have something better than both.

[survivalshop]

And in your opinion ,what round & rifle did you have in mind ?

I remember hanging out with my dad & all his buddy's a the local VFW post 451 & listen to there war stories (WWII ) They did not have any thing good to say about the M1 carbine .

The marines that were issued the 1903&A3's said they would kill to get an M 1 Garrand that the Army guys had & that's understandable ,bolt gun for a semi any thing.

My dad was a Sargent & carried a Tomson sub & had mixed feelings about it . One was it marked him for being some thing other than a PFC .

I have nothing against the modern M16 class of rifles . They kill the enemy & you can't ask for any thing better than that , but they as like any rifle has its strengths & weaknesses. The 5.56 was really made for a 20 " bbl. it was designed around it . When they made them shorter for CQB it took away the effective range , pure & simple.

When talking about 40 -60 more rounds , why not 100 more or 200 more 5 more ,1 more  , there's always going to be in a situation, if about ammo " if I only had more ammo".

[98Z5V]

And in your opinion ,what round & rifle did you have in mind ?

My $0.02 on it - what I'd want in my hands (I'm still talking about Afghanistan, here).  SR-25 EM Carbine or a Noveske N6 14.5" or Leonidas, packing nothing but M118LR in LR Pmags (for the SR-25 EMC). 

The SR-25 is in the system, but the Noveskes aren't - I still put them up there as a choice, because they run and they're  accurate.  Quality guns that you don't have to mess with, run, and you don't have to worry about for the most part.  M118LR because it's in the system.  Heavy round that runs well out of those guns/twist rates on those barrels.  LR Pmags because they're strong, don't dent, and are very easy to take apart and clean - that's important.  That place is rocky, and everything over there is sharp.  My GI 5.56 mags got beat up pretty good; some were worthless after taking a beating. 

Can't run the Pmags through the Noveske rifles I know, but those two guns are still a 2nd place choice - either one of them.  SR-25 EMC is definitely my first choice. 

[SWshooter]

I'm thinkin' a rifle with the ergonomics of a FAL or AR with either a piston gas action or a roller HK type. MY requirements are that : 1. You must be able to operate the safety with the rifle in firing position without shifting your hand. 2. You must be able to operate the mag release from the firing position without shifting your firing hand. 3. must be able to insert new magazine without shifting your firing hand. 4. Must be able to cycle the action without shifting the firing hand or lifting your head off the stock. Either a FAL or HK type is good, I like the HK better because of the ease of locking the action open and closing it with the left hand. 5. Completely modular design allowing the ability to change barrel, stock, trigger group, and optics and/or iron sights in the field with 100% return to zero.

    Cartridge requirement: 1. Must be between .264-.284 in caliber. 2. Projectile must weigh from 100-140 grains. 3. must have a minimum muzzle velocity of 2800 fps. Would be nice if battle ammo was loaded in aluminum cases like Blaser ammo, and brass cases for reloadable practice ammo and match/sniper ammo.

      Other requirements: 1. A decent 3 point ambi sling. 2. 20, 40 and 100(beta type) round magazines that are easy to disassemble and clean. 3. A really good trigger would be nice for a change. 4. MOA accuracy with battle ammo in issue rifles would make those 600 yd shots a lot easier. What the heck, every soldier carrying a rifle should be a designated marksman. If you can't shoot than you should be driving a truck or scrambling eggs.

      Some of these requirements are available in some current battle rifle, they should all be available in one rifle and it should be ours. If we can spend trillions to bail out some civilians who can't manage their money properly, we should be able to supply our troops with the best battle rifle in the world. Thats my opinion anyway.

[imschur]

i was just reading that the Marines have side stepped the govt process and are beginning to field modified hk 416's. I believe its part of the IAR program

[SWshooter]

A step in the right direction I think.

[98Z5V]

Just like SOCOM (USASFC, USASOC, from the Army side); always been on a separate procurement channel.  <thumbsup>  Big Army responds too slow, and too stupid in alot of cases.  It gets half-assed once it's in the hands of the end-user.  >:(

[imschur]

I believe what they have done is taken the already approved HK IAR and made some changes to it under the IAR name...thus avoiding politics

[Para308]

Going piston with the HK416 and not upping the caliber is a mistake.  Range is a problem.  For an infantryman (I was Airborne Infantry) caliber must be balanced with the soldier's load especially if airborne which gets resupplied after 3 days (doctrine may have changed since I was in).  Tolerances in the environment must also come into play.  Oil the weapon a lot, run it wet seems to be the consensus but the military units are slow in changing SOP. 

I would go to the 6.5 bullet - it has a long history of usefulness.  The .308 is heavy and the rifles that shoots it.  I would have gone with a 6-6.5 caliber and kept the 20 inch barrel of the M16A3 or 4 for Afghanistan. 

The 6.5 Grendel has superior ballistics to the .308 and weighs much less along with the fact that you only need to change the upper and modify the magazine - 26 rounds in 30 round mags - I think.  A soldier can carry a lot more ammo in 6.5 and the weight of the 18-20 inch M16 will not be that much different.  Remember, the soldier's load is very important in mountainous terrain like Afghanistan!  I have packed and humped 203s, M60s, M249 SAWs, and M240s in different terrains during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.  Ammo is usually distributed around - it is a bitch to carry.

9X19mm is useless in ball and handguns are not the primary weapons of infantrymen.