jimbarry 0 #26 August 4, 2004 I'm no weapons expert, but just some thoughts... True, wounded enemy are more logistically draining (good), but then sometimes they can still fight (bad). I can carry 2x as much 5.56 (good), but then I'll probably need to throw twice as much at them (bad). Lots of other vets out here who might agree, but back in my 11B days, I had this uneasy feeling about being told that my enemy would almost certainly have 7.62 while I had my trusty M-16 by my side. But wait, it's sooo light! And it's so easy to clean! So what, when you're in your 20s, light/heavy is important, but it's not as relevant as surviving. Stay in shape, carry what you can carry, and live. So I lugged the M-60 as much as I could. Very disappointed we're not going to something 7.62-ish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #27 August 4, 2004 Metal Storm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn!!! Anyone remember that awful 3D science fiction piece of junk? I saw it in '83 when it came out and I was visiting my brother at college. I guess I loved it then, but now?... My dad actually looked into investing in the parent company of Metal Storm... I thought that was funny. I remember reading about it about four years or so ago. The theoretical rate of fire was like ONE MILLION ROUND PER MINUTE. Each round was electrically fired from a tube containing however many rounds, end-to-end. No "semi-automatic" reloading of the chamber because the barrel is the chamber. They said that all of the rounds could be out of the barrel before recoil even occurs -- essentially I don't even know if recoil would occur because the rounds launch themselves like little rockets. I would not like to trust any gun with electronics in it -- period. And I don't think I like the idea of a military warship armed exclusively with such, because in the event of electronic warfare, what happens? Is there a .001% chance of ending up with a well-armed ship that can't fire? By the way, anyone have data on the comparative ballistics performance of 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm? I have an SKS in 7.62 and an H-BAR ("AR-15," really, just renamed for P.C. purposes) in 5.56. I thought I remember reading or hearing that 7.62 is not an accurate round or something. (Though I've never understood much about what makes the round itself guilty of being inaccurate...) Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #28 August 4, 2004 I’m afraid you’re gonna have to live with the concept of electronically fired weapons on board ships. Think about what happens on a modern warship when it comes under attack: The electronic radar detects an incoming missile and electronically displays it as an electronic blip on the electric radar screen. The radar operator keys his electric mic and an officer hears him speak on his electric headphones. The officer gives orders to attack the missile and someone pushes some electric buttons. Electronic signals get sent to the ships defence systems. Say the missile’s close – the ships electronic target acquisition computer chooses Phalanx and sends an electronic message to the weapon to power up its electric motors. Phalanx electronically communicates with the ships electric defence computer, which uses information electrically gathered from the ships electric radar system to compute the missiles path in its complicated electric brain. It electronically communicates this back to Phalanx so that I knows where to aim. Phalanx’s electric motors whir into action and point its multi-barrelled gun in the right direction before it spits a hail of fire in the direction of its target. Its multiple barrels spin with the aid of an electric motor. It continues to track its target across the sky, aided continuously by electronic communications between it and the ships defence computer and its electronically powered motors. The story is little changed if it’s a ship 10 miles away we’re shooting at, or if the incoming missile is detected much earlier and we’re able to shoot at it with our own electronically launched missiles (no blue touch paper there). Face it – ships are covered in electrics and they have been for years. The days when a ships primary defence system was a guy stood at a railing with a manually fired gun aimed with some crosshairs and a team bringing him ammo by hand are long long gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #29 August 4, 2004 QuoteBy the way, anyone have data on the comparative ballistics performance of 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm? I have an SKS in 7.62 and an H-BAR ("AR-15," really, just renamed for P.C. purposes) in 5.56. I thought I remember reading or hearing that 7.62 is not an accurate round or something. (Though I've never understood much about what makes the round itself guilty of being inaccurate...) Blue skies, - I know little about true ballistics but I did do competitive shooting (in the military) for many many years. We used the R1 (derived from the Belgian FN) with standard NATO 7.62 ammo. We routinely shot from 500 yards and the rifle and ammo proved extremely accurate. When our military converted to the R4 (which can be compared to the Ak-47 but with 5.56 ammo), we battled to score properly from 200 yards. The reason was simple:- the much lighter projectile would start tumbling after about 150 yards and then it was potluck! Of course, the R4 was not designed for long range shooting. At the time we were heavily involved in the conflict in South West Africa (Namibia) and Angola, where close quarter/ semi jungle style combat was more the order of the day. The smaller, lighter R4 was much more practical. (Although it could never take out a terr by shooting through a tree like the R1 could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #30 August 4, 2004 Soviet 7.62 is shorter and much less powerful than NATO 7.62. The Soviet round has similar ballistic characteristics to the NATO 5.56 round in that it's shit for accuracy and tumbles at distance or after initial impact. The logic was that in a big war between the two super powers the majority of combatants would be less well trained and thus accuracy would be moot anyway. The average range over which a battle is fought is short so it doesn't matter if the round is inaccurate at long range. A tumbling round causes more damage to a target than a straight fling one. In fact the 5.56 round is designed from the ground up to only just have enough energy to keep it stable in flight... the moment it impacts with it's target it is designed to tumble and create a large exit wound. A more powerful round may simply fly straight through the target and actually impart less kinetic energy. For this reason it tends to start to tumble after only a few hundred feet when its energy starts to bleed off. Soviets took all this theory even one step further and their standard round at the close of the cold war was supposed to be the 5.45x39mm as adopted in the AK74 which takes the downsizing trend even further than NATO did. As I’ve said though, none of the theory really holds true anymore for modern requirements. It’s just that it’s always tough to change established military doctrine. A modern army is small and well trained. We need to kill before we are killed and we need to do it at a distance so that we don’t send home boxes draped in flags. This calls for a larger, more accurate round and the 5.56 simply doesn’t cut it. Going big means weight which means sacrificing ammo – but generals don’t want to do that. So go caseless – that’s where a lot of the weight is… but the technology needs work. Metalstorm is not really a development in caseless ammo. It’s simply taking existing big gun technology going miniature and stacking them on top of each other. Remember big guns don't have cartridges - they have a shell and a charge, just like metalstorm. There's also nothing new in having more than one round in the chamber. There were weapons developed like this in the early 1800’s to solve the rate of fire issues which dogged weapons of that era. Such weapons could be loaded with half a dozen rounds and had separate percussion nipples down the barrel and a sliding hammer action. They were of course little more than a curiosity - too heavy and dificult to operate for the battle field and little demand for a high rate of fire in the civilian world. The main problem with citing Metalstorm as an example is that it does not address the biggest issue of caseless ammo: the handling and loading by a mechanical system of inherently less robust ammunition. That is the real challenge, and it is one that is most likely going to be solved by chemists as opposed to engineers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 August 4, 2004 QuoteBy the way, anyone have data on the comparative ballistics performance of 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm? I have an SKS in 7.62 and an H-BAR ("AR-15," really, just renamed for P.C. purposes) in 5.56. I thought I remember reading or hearing that 7.62 is not an accurate round or something. (Though I've never understood much about what makes the round itself guilty of being inaccurate...) Most battles are 3-7 meters. Long range is not needed. More bullets is good since most spray and pray anyway."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #32 August 4, 2004 Quotewe battled to score properly from 200 yards. The reason was simple:- the much lighter projectile would start tumbling after about 150 yards and then it was potluck! Of course, the R4 was not designed for long range shooting. I would say that is more the platform, than the ammo... I have hit targets at 500m with a short barreled (11.5 in) AR-15... I shot competatively with M16A1s out to 400m (and got about 90% of them in the x-ring)... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #33 August 4, 2004 Let's call up Mr.Stoner and have him send us a bunch of his AR-10's, in glorious .308. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #34 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuotewe battled to score properly from 200 yards. The reason was simple:- the much lighter projectile would start tumbling after about 150 yards and then it was potluck! Of course, the R4 was not designed for long range shooting. I would say that is more the platform, than the ammo... I have hit targets at 500m with a short barreled (11.5 in) AR-15... I shot competatively with M16A1s out to 400m (and got about 90% of them in the x-ring)... The .223 is very sensitive to the twist rate. If you use heavier, hence longer, bullets, the twist rate in the barrel riflings needs to go up, as much as 1 twist in 8 inches, I think. Less than that and the longer bullets will tumble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #35 August 4, 2004 QuoteR4 was much more practical. (Although it could never take out a terr by shooting through a tree like the R1 could.... The M16's 5.56mm bullet can also be deflected by small branches. You just shoot a little more. The bad guys referred to us as the men wearing the chicken patch carrying the little black guns.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #36 August 4, 2004 QuoteThe .223 is very sensitive to the twist rate. If you use heavier, hence longer, bullets, the twist rate in the barrel riflings needs to go up, as much as 1 twist in 8 inches The barrel on the 11.5" was 1 in 9... which is what you need for SS109 spec ammo the A2's were designed for... A1's are 1 in 11 or 12 and use different weight ammo... A1s are accurate, if you use the ammo they were designed for. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #37 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteBy the way, anyone have data on the comparative ballistics performance of 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm? I have an SKS in 7.62 and an H-BAR ("AR-15," really, just renamed for P.C. purposes) in 5.56. I thought I remember reading or hearing that 7.62 is not an accurate round or something. (Though I've never understood much about what makes the round itself guilty of being inaccurate...) Most battles are 3-7 meters. Long range is not needed. More bullets is good since most spray and pray anyway. i'd love to see a source for that statement, it certainly doenst apply to most battles and i have a hard time believing it even applies to most light infantry engagements. If you are fighting that close, someone really screwed up to begin with.... timing and distance are the two primary factors in any conflict. 3-7 meters completely gives away the advatages of distance..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #38 August 4, 2004 Quotei'd love to see a source for that statement CAG operator. After I asked him from something I heard on the History channel. For police: Shooting Distances From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet. Contact to 3 feet ... 34% 3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47% 6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9% The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet. Contact to 10 feet ... 51% 10 feet to 20 feet .... 24% I look for a website that is about the Army...But a CAG guy is a pretty damn good source to me... Other neato reading about street use can be found: http://www.iupa-fl.org/Articles/combat.htm About the number of rounds: QuoteMcCaffrey, who led small units in Vietnam and commanded the 24th Infantry Division in the Persian Gulf War. A 100-man infantry company may fire 50,000 rounds of ammunition during the first few hours of a battle. But most of that will be expended as suppressive fire, just "to keep people under cover," McCaffrey "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #39 August 4, 2004 Hmm nice site, Cops i can see the nature of their job means they will likely be inside that close range distance even before violence occurs...this is a tactical error, but one they must make because their job is not combat, it is law enforcement. Also their standard arm doesn’t have range significantly greater than that distance to begin with….they have to get that close to take out their targets. Do you think we should be using statistics related to close quarter combat (with pistols) to determine what the requirements are for a line infantryman's primary weapon? fire suppression (volume) vs accuracy has been military doctrine for a while now... its not applicable to all situations, but taking 20 rounds to kill your opponent isnt a negative, if in doing so you prevent your opponent from firing (his possibly more accurate weapon) back.. its a numbers game, but the numbers can change in any given environment.... weapons and systems we developed to fight the cold war enemy aren’t as effective against a smaller terrorist threat.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #40 August 4, 2004 QuoteDo you think we should be using statistics related to close quarter combat (with pistols) to determine what the requirements are for a line infantryman's primary weapon? Not the site I was looking for however: http://www.strategypage.com/iraqlessonslearned/iraqwarlessonslearned.asp From the Gulf War: Quote In Iraq, the average range of engagement for infantry was under a hundred meters, more often 20-30 meters. Even the snipers rarely took a shot farther than 300 meters. The artical also talks about the "Stoner" 7.62 version of the M-16..And the use off 77 grain bullets to add some punch to the standard 5.56 This is new info for me...I had not seen it yet. Maybe its more than 3-7 now. But I tend to believe the CAG guy (Of course that was 2001 s it could be dated info) Any way this artical also shows that we don't need that much range and the number of bullets is still important."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mcrocker 0 #41 August 4, 2004 Anyone else find it odd that the 'More info' link for the new US weapon is a RUSSIAN website? Not that .ru is our enemy any more (or ever really was...) just an observation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #42 August 4, 2004 Quote Not that .ru is our enemy any more (or ever really was...) just an observation. I guess I'm missing something with the "or ever really was". What do you mean?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mcrocker 0 #43 August 4, 2004 QuoteHmm nice site, Cops i can see the nature of their job means they will likely be inside that close range distance even before violence occurs...this is a tactical error, but one they must make because their job is not combat, it is law enforcement. Also their standard arm doesn’t have range significantly greater than that distance to begin with….they have to get that close to take out their targets. Do you think we should be using statistics related to close quarter combat (with pistols) to determine what the requirements are for a line infantryman's primary weapon? The U.S Military is doing more and more law enforcement jobs these days. Tactical error? Should the new infantrymans primary weapon requirements change to reflect their new job role (the world police force)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #44 August 4, 2004 no we should stop using infantry for security forces.. the line soldiers are simply not trained for it.. One of the key issues in the current conflict is the attempt to hammer our 'square' army into a 'round' hole... we are currently engaged in a 'gross tactical error' continued from the misguided attempt to address the military issue of terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not leveraging the assets we have already developed to fight such threats when they would have been most effective...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mcrocker 0 #45 August 4, 2004 I fully agree but I don't think you'll see things changing. The 'square' army is going to be forced to become a 'round' army. Lets face it, The U.S. military for good or ill is the 'world police force' and that isn't going to be changing any time soon. There will always be 'bad guys' and said 'bad guys' are no longer countries which we can have large scale wars with. Close combat, security, and law enforcement is the name of the new game and the U.S. military is going to adapt to it. Maybe that is why they are still developing smaller weapons with shorter ranges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #46 August 4, 2004 I found this picture of a soldier wearing the newly redesigned BDU's and carrying the new XM8 assault rifle. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Erroll 80 #47 August 5, 2004 Quoteits a numbers game, but the numbers can change in any given environment.... weapons and systems we developed to fight the cold war enemy aren’t as effective against a smaller terrorist threat. I think that is an extremely accurate observation. From what I have read, the American forces in Vietnam initially approached the conflict with a 'battle field' mentality because, apart from Korea, that was what they knew. The weapons, composition of fighting units, air support and log etc all had to change quite dramatically to suit the new circumstances. In Iraq it is different again - desert warfare on the one hand and urban, 'house-to-house' on the other. The 'enemy' is frequently just one man with an RPG, surrounded by local population, with the good/neutral folk indistinguishable from the bad. Napalm just won't cut it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #48 August 5, 2004 Three things you can never have too much of: Time in your days Sex in you nights Ammo in your pocketswitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites burbleflyer 0 #49 August 5, 2004 ***Saturday, July 24, 2004 2005 funding for XM8 Rifle axed FRI 23 JUL04. Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer. Christopher Boyce. A $25.9 million funding request for H&K to begin making the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus, GA was pulled from a Department of Defense appropriations bill before Congress approved the 2005 spending plan late Thursday. Jennifer Hoelzer, director of communications for U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, said the money was part of the $417.5 billion appropriations bill. Bishop, D-Ga., said $25.9 million was sought for gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch to begin production of the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #50 August 5, 2004 In addition to ammo in your pockets, I thought you might find this interesting. Came in old email. Subject: Airborne and Air Force Rules for Gunfighting Airborne (Paratroopers) Rules for Gunfighting 1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. 2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive. 3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss. 4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly. 5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement preferred.) 6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun. 7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived. 8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. 9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. 9.5. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pees in the flintlock of your musket. 10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you with it because it is empty. 11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you loose. 12. Have a plan. 13.Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work. 14. Use cover and concealment as much as possible. 15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours. 16. Don't drop your guard. 17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. 18. Watch their hands. Hands kill (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands in sight. 19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH,quickly ENOUGH. 20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get. 21. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet. 22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. 23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. 24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4". Air Force Rules for Gunfighting 1. Get in the air. 2. Bring Paratroopers. 3. Drink Coffee.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jdhill 0 #36 August 4, 2004 QuoteThe .223 is very sensitive to the twist rate. If you use heavier, hence longer, bullets, the twist rate in the barrel riflings needs to go up, as much as 1 twist in 8 inches The barrel on the 11.5" was 1 in 9... which is what you need for SS109 spec ammo the A2's were designed for... A1's are 1 in 11 or 12 and use different weight ammo... A1s are accurate, if you use the ammo they were designed for. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #37 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteBy the way, anyone have data on the comparative ballistics performance of 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm? I have an SKS in 7.62 and an H-BAR ("AR-15," really, just renamed for P.C. purposes) in 5.56. I thought I remember reading or hearing that 7.62 is not an accurate round or something. (Though I've never understood much about what makes the round itself guilty of being inaccurate...) Most battles are 3-7 meters. Long range is not needed. More bullets is good since most spray and pray anyway. i'd love to see a source for that statement, it certainly doenst apply to most battles and i have a hard time believing it even applies to most light infantry engagements. If you are fighting that close, someone really screwed up to begin with.... timing and distance are the two primary factors in any conflict. 3-7 meters completely gives away the advatages of distance..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #38 August 4, 2004 Quotei'd love to see a source for that statement CAG operator. After I asked him from something I heard on the History channel. For police: Shooting Distances From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet. Contact to 3 feet ... 34% 3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47% 6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9% The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet. Contact to 10 feet ... 51% 10 feet to 20 feet .... 24% I look for a website that is about the Army...But a CAG guy is a pretty damn good source to me... Other neato reading about street use can be found: http://www.iupa-fl.org/Articles/combat.htm About the number of rounds: QuoteMcCaffrey, who led small units in Vietnam and commanded the 24th Infantry Division in the Persian Gulf War. A 100-man infantry company may fire 50,000 rounds of ammunition during the first few hours of a battle. But most of that will be expended as suppressive fire, just "to keep people under cover," McCaffrey "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #39 August 4, 2004 Hmm nice site, Cops i can see the nature of their job means they will likely be inside that close range distance even before violence occurs...this is a tactical error, but one they must make because their job is not combat, it is law enforcement. Also their standard arm doesn’t have range significantly greater than that distance to begin with….they have to get that close to take out their targets. Do you think we should be using statistics related to close quarter combat (with pistols) to determine what the requirements are for a line infantryman's primary weapon? fire suppression (volume) vs accuracy has been military doctrine for a while now... its not applicable to all situations, but taking 20 rounds to kill your opponent isnt a negative, if in doing so you prevent your opponent from firing (his possibly more accurate weapon) back.. its a numbers game, but the numbers can change in any given environment.... weapons and systems we developed to fight the cold war enemy aren’t as effective against a smaller terrorist threat.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 August 4, 2004 QuoteDo you think we should be using statistics related to close quarter combat (with pistols) to determine what the requirements are for a line infantryman's primary weapon? Not the site I was looking for however: http://www.strategypage.com/iraqlessonslearned/iraqwarlessonslearned.asp From the Gulf War: Quote In Iraq, the average range of engagement for infantry was under a hundred meters, more often 20-30 meters. Even the snipers rarely took a shot farther than 300 meters. The artical also talks about the "Stoner" 7.62 version of the M-16..And the use off 77 grain bullets to add some punch to the standard 5.56 This is new info for me...I had not seen it yet. Maybe its more than 3-7 now. But I tend to believe the CAG guy (Of course that was 2001 s it could be dated info) Any way this artical also shows that we don't need that much range and the number of bullets is still important."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #41 August 4, 2004 Anyone else find it odd that the 'More info' link for the new US weapon is a RUSSIAN website? Not that .ru is our enemy any more (or ever really was...) just an observation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #42 August 4, 2004 Quote Not that .ru is our enemy any more (or ever really was...) just an observation. I guess I'm missing something with the "or ever really was". What do you mean?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #43 August 4, 2004 QuoteHmm nice site, Cops i can see the nature of their job means they will likely be inside that close range distance even before violence occurs...this is a tactical error, but one they must make because their job is not combat, it is law enforcement. Also their standard arm doesn’t have range significantly greater than that distance to begin with….they have to get that close to take out their targets. Do you think we should be using statistics related to close quarter combat (with pistols) to determine what the requirements are for a line infantryman's primary weapon? The U.S Military is doing more and more law enforcement jobs these days. Tactical error? Should the new infantrymans primary weapon requirements change to reflect their new job role (the world police force)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #44 August 4, 2004 no we should stop using infantry for security forces.. the line soldiers are simply not trained for it.. One of the key issues in the current conflict is the attempt to hammer our 'square' army into a 'round' hole... we are currently engaged in a 'gross tactical error' continued from the misguided attempt to address the military issue of terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not leveraging the assets we have already developed to fight such threats when they would have been most effective...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #45 August 4, 2004 I fully agree but I don't think you'll see things changing. The 'square' army is going to be forced to become a 'round' army. Lets face it, The U.S. military for good or ill is the 'world police force' and that isn't going to be changing any time soon. There will always be 'bad guys' and said 'bad guys' are no longer countries which we can have large scale wars with. Close combat, security, and law enforcement is the name of the new game and the U.S. military is going to adapt to it. Maybe that is why they are still developing smaller weapons with shorter ranges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #46 August 4, 2004 I found this picture of a soldier wearing the newly redesigned BDU's and carrying the new XM8 assault rifle. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #47 August 5, 2004 Quoteits a numbers game, but the numbers can change in any given environment.... weapons and systems we developed to fight the cold war enemy aren’t as effective against a smaller terrorist threat. I think that is an extremely accurate observation. From what I have read, the American forces in Vietnam initially approached the conflict with a 'battle field' mentality because, apart from Korea, that was what they knew. The weapons, composition of fighting units, air support and log etc all had to change quite dramatically to suit the new circumstances. In Iraq it is different again - desert warfare on the one hand and urban, 'house-to-house' on the other. The 'enemy' is frequently just one man with an RPG, surrounded by local population, with the good/neutral folk indistinguishable from the bad. Napalm just won't cut it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #48 August 5, 2004 Three things you can never have too much of: Time in your days Sex in you nights Ammo in your pocketswitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #49 August 5, 2004 ***Saturday, July 24, 2004 2005 funding for XM8 Rifle axed FRI 23 JUL04. Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer. Christopher Boyce. A $25.9 million funding request for H&K to begin making the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus, GA was pulled from a Department of Defense appropriations bill before Congress approved the 2005 spending plan late Thursday. Jennifer Hoelzer, director of communications for U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, said the money was part of the $417.5 billion appropriations bill. Bishop, D-Ga., said $25.9 million was sought for gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch to begin production of the XM8 assault rifle in Columbus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #50 August 5, 2004 In addition to ammo in your pockets, I thought you might find this interesting. Came in old email. Subject: Airborne and Air Force Rules for Gunfighting Airborne (Paratroopers) Rules for Gunfighting 1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. 2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive. 3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss. 4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly. 5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement preferred.) 6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun. 7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived. 8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. 9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. 9.5. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pees in the flintlock of your musket. 10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you with it because it is empty. 11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you loose. 12. Have a plan. 13.Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work. 14. Use cover and concealment as much as possible. 15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours. 16. Don't drop your guard. 17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. 18. Watch their hands. Hands kill (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands in sight. 19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH,quickly ENOUGH. 20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get. 21. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet. 22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. 23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. 24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4". Air Force Rules for Gunfighting 1. Get in the air. 2. Bring Paratroopers. 3. Drink Coffee.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
