# This is not a repeat of 1830 or 1980



## tellner (May 21, 2010)

Vintage Enfields and bolt-action Mausers work just fine at long range. The chopped down version of what Mr. Stoner called the worst mistake he ever made, not so much.

US Rifles Not Suited for Warfare in Afghan Hills




> 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.
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 21, 2010)

Horses for courses, as ever.  

It amazes me that the glacial 'machine' of command has taken so long to realise this ... then again ...


----------



## tellner (May 21, 2010)

Brown Bess vs. Jezzail and AK-47 vs. the same bolt guns the US is up against today. I know Command Decisions take time. But 150 years? That's a long learning curve even for the Army.

Then again, after almost 3000 years they still don't understand conquering Afghanistan is easy. Occupying it is impossible.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 21, 2010)

Oh so true all round there, Todd .


----------



## thardey (May 21, 2010)

tellner said:


> Brown Bess vs. Jezzail and AK-47 vs. the same bolt guns the US is up against today. I know Command Decisions take time. But 150 years? That's a long learning curve even for the Army.
> 
> Then again, after almost 3000 years they still don't understand conquering Afghanistan is easy. Occupying it is impossible.


 
That's why my AR-platform buddies, and .300 magnum buddies don't understand why I hang on to my grandpa's old 6.5 x55 Swede.

The right tool for the right application.

Semi's and Auto's with light bullets for short, intense fights.
Heavier bullets for long range -- with a smooth bolt-action you can reload as fast as you need to. (Unless you've got skills that are out of this world.)

If I'm not mistaken, though, bolt actions with heavier rounds have been the norm for snipers since the original Sharp's. It sound like the difference is in training and embedding more sharpshooters in each company.

BTW, for those who would split the hairs, is there a difference in the military between "Sharpshooters" and "Snipers?"


----------



## Archangel M (May 21, 2010)

The designated marksman concept mentioned here (sprinkle some 30 caliber rifles throughout the company) has been around far longer than our current stint in Afghanistan. 

The M4-M16 is fine for the application it was designed for. IMO we need two service rifles, one for Jungle/MOUT intensive conflicts and another for long range environments. The AR platform is ideal for this..all you need to do is switch uppers and magazines. 5.56 and 7.62 ammo is plentiful. I'd go with operating rod systems personally.


----------



## Archangel M (May 21, 2010)

thardey said:


> BTW, for those who would split the hairs, is there a difference in the military between "Sharpshooters" and "Snipers?"



In an oversimplified  nutshell:

Snipers sneak around in 2 man teams to observe targets and/or eliminate specific targets.

Sharpshooters/Designated Marksman are typically Infantrymen with heavier caliber weapons than the rest of their buddies. It basically started out as "Hey Pvt. Smith! You qualified expert...take this rifle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_marksman


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 21, 2010)

The M16 and its variants were never well-suited for desert type environments, IMHO.  The forward-assist should be proof of that - if the thing needs a heel smash to seat the bolt from time to time, the design blows.

We have literally millions of surplus M1 Garands in storage right now, ready to issue.  Perfect weapon for this sort of terrain and distance, the classic 30-06 is a great long-range round.  Failing that, the M14 can be brought out of storage as well; .308 also known as 7.62 NATO.

And by the way, for those interested, US citizens can get a genuine US Army surplus M1 Garand direct from the US Army storage facilities via the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a little-known organization established by Congress to arm civilians (yes!).  It's been under the radar for decades; the Democrats have never seriously tried to shut it down; but you might want to get your M1 before they do.

http://www.odcmp.com/

By the way, for those of you who *do* know about the CMP, the requirements and such have changed a lot over the past decade or so. It's now much easier to get a weapon, you can get more than just one, and you can get (although it might be a long wait) other military surplus weapons.  I've heard people criticize that you can just go to a gun shop and buy one for less money or in better condition.  Dunno, could be true.  But I helped my dad get his M1 Garand before he passed, and it was one of the things that he really remembered as a bright spot in his last few years on this earth.  I was glad to have done it.  So check it out if you're that way inclined.


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And by the way, for those interested, US citizens can get a genuine US Army surplus M1 Garand direct from the US Army storage facilities via the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a little-known organization established by Congress to arm civilians (yes!). It's been under the radar for decades; the Democrats have never seriously tried to shut it down; but you might want to get your M1 before they do.
> .


 
Goddammit, Bill! Hush!

(Demands gone up, prices have gone up-got mine for $350, once upon a short time ago.....)


----------



## Archangel M (May 21, 2010)

thardey said:


> Semi's and Auto's with light bullets for short, intense fights.
> Heavier bullets for long range -- with a smooth bolt-action you can reload as fast as you need to. (Unless you've got skills that are out of this world.)



The problem arises when you are fighting a war where you or your enemy starts out at long ranges but maneuver or assault into close range. Or you wind up fighting in an urban environment. When they are charging your foxholes those long range bolt guns would willing be ditched for an Auto. Thats where the M1 shone in WWII. Its disadvantage being the size, weight, en-clip operation and amount of ammo you could hump. The AR attempted to solve the size/weight/capacity issue at the sacrifice of the 30cal round. The AR has killed plenty of our enemy...you are never going to find "perfect" out there. The biggest advantage of the AR platform is it's modularity. You could solve many problems without having to redesign the entire platform. Larger caliber uppers...re-engineered bolts and operating systems (My Bushmaster doesn't even have a forward assist and I haven't even noticed a difference)...etc.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 21, 2010)

This is one of those threads that really makes me envy you, my friends across the Atlantic .  

It's been far too long since I was able to practise my marksmanship and I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity again.  I was once good enough to be on my university rifle team but that was before my accident 'altered' my right arm forever {you never know what will destroy your aim and my arm is no longer as straight or as strong as it once was}.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 21, 2010)

Keep in mind the M-16 was first developed as a base defense rifle for the Air Force (thanks Gen. LeMay.. thanks a bunch.)

It was then used in jungles where short range was the rule and not the exception. It was actually a very nasty weapon with the original 55gr slug.

Well fast forward to today. Afghanistan is long range country. And the .223/5.56 is not a long range round. Yes I know it is used in 600m competition (I've shot in leg matches and I know all about that.) But hitting a piece of paper at 600 meters and putting a hole in it is not the same things is disabling someone.

The SS109/M885, while having better penetration at longer ranges does NOT, especially in the short M4 barrel, have the ability to do great damage past 150 yards. And that is the problem. Afghanistan has LOTS of places way way past 150 yards!

The newest sniper rifle, a version of the M24, uses the .300 Winchester Magnum. Wise idea! Easily good past 1000 yards. But the M4 is not a good Afghan gun! What is needed for general issue is the M16A1, but maybe in 6.8mm. But since that isnt in the cards, we need the M16A1 with a thinner 22 inch barrel to get as much velocity as we can get for the SS109/M885 round. And if necessary, issue true JHP/SP ammo!

Oh, one more way to get some extral oomph out of the 5.56. The new Hornady Superperformace powder. It would mean rebarreling all the rifles as the gas port must be smaller but it adds 200 fps to the 5.56 round. That might, from the M16A1, bring the MV well past 3300 fps for the 63gr SS109/M558 slug! Rebarreling is alot cheaper than a new rifle or totaly new round!

Deaf


----------



## tellner (May 21, 2010)

Good points, but these mods to the M16 seem a bit like using a lathe as a can opener. You can do it with a lot of modifications and jiggery-pokery. But you might just be better off using a can opener. Or a bolt rifle as the case may be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 21, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> And if necessary, issue true JHP/SP ammo!



Geneva Convention says no.  Ball ammo only, FMJ.


----------



## Archangel M (May 22, 2010)

You will never see a bolt action weapon issued as a main battle rifle. Nice to toss around "what if's" but it just ain't gonna happen.  Likewise with taking WWII or Korean vintage M1's or M14's out of mothballs. The most realistic scenario (which still probably wont happen) is either the issuance of 6.8 or 7.62 uppered M16's or an entirely new design that will still look like an M16.


----------



## Skpotamus (May 22, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Geneva Convention says no.  Ball ammo only, FMJ.


 

The Hague Convention of 1899 covered prohibited weapons.  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

Geneva covered how people were treated.  POW's, wounded, shipwrecked, etc.  

Vietnam actually used their refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as justification for the torture of US POW's.  I don't think Afghan actually signed it either, so I think we (the US) could use that as justification for not following it.  We'd get crucified by the world's media though.


----------



## Stick Dummy (May 22, 2010)

The M-4 is MOUT operation based and the entire military is aware of its shortcomings.
 Carry an M-1 or M-14 and compare ammo payloads for weight.
For the intended area of operation a .300 Win Mag with the 190 DODIC load,or a .338 make more sense.
Of course so does using a Armed Predator drone or close air support......

Let the military fight a war without political intervention or media interferance and it will be won.

Oh and a President with guts would not hurt either.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 22, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> The Hague Convention of 1899 covered prohibited weapons.  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
> 
> Geneva covered how people were treated.  POW's, wounded, shipwrecked, etc.
> 
> Vietnam actually used their refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as justification for the torture of US POW's.  I don't think Afghan actually signed it either, so I think we (the US) could use that as justification for not following it.  We'd get crucified by the world's media though.



I stand corrected; Hague Convention and not Geneva.  In any case, I think we're bound by it, regardless of whether or not others are signatories.


----------



## tellner (May 22, 2010)

Stick Dummy said:


> Let the military fight a war without political intervention or media interferance and it will be won.
> 
> Oh and a President with guts would not hurt either.



Stop guzzling the Kool Aid for a moment. Obama is carrying out Bush's policies to the letter with the same SoD and the same Pentagon Brass. He's escalated right on schedule, decided that expanding the invasion into Pakistan is just fine and has even set up a few new no-tell Black prisons and torture centers. That should give an erection to all of the Unending War crowd.

Political intervention? War is entirely political. It always has been. The problem is that when your Leader started waving his little saber around he had no clue what he wanted to do except for one *political* end. He wanted the slavish devotion and abject fear of the American sheeple. So he made all of you terrified enough to go along with a pair of stupid quagmires with no goals, no exit strategy, no plan other than "kill a lot of people in time for the next elections". 

Media interference? I suppose criminals, cowards and cockroaches love the dark. But in a free society where the government is supposed to be responsible to the people there needs to be accountability. And the people need to know the truth. This war was and still is stage-managed by the Pentagon. The atrocities have all been carefully hidden. The myth of the Glorious Crusade has been blasted at us unceasingly by politically reliable "embedded" journalists, carefully censored and without a shred of independence. Anything which reflects less than Kim Jong-il like religious devotion on the whole sordid mess is shouted down.


----------



## Stick Dummy (May 22, 2010)

#1 I don't drink cool aid.

#2 I thought the USA was attacked by TERRORISTS based in Afghanistan not a foreign military?

#3 Barack Obama said we were leaving Afghanistan, oops did he lie (again)

#4 why is it when the USA really starts to destroy an enemy who has killed innocent US citizens on their own soil, the hand wringers at State or Ex-office "order" the military to stop??

#5 What does your rant have to do with rifle calibers?? Anything meaningful to say about this TOPIC without having to hurl direct insults?


All for now off to drink a nice cup of Sumatran coffee and order somebody so PROZAC!


----------



## Skpotamus (May 22, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I stand corrected; Hague Convention and not Geneva.  In any case, I think we're bound by it, regardless of whether or not others are signatories.



Sorry, too many years in school getting corrected  

The actual articles state: 
"Article 2   The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in Article 1 are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between *two or more of them.   *
   These provisions shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the belligerents."  (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp)



Since we're fighting a non signatory group (not even a nation), the conventions don't technically apply (lord knows they don't abide by them).  So we could in fact use the nasty stuff and have legal loophole to do so, the world media would crucify us and it would take a political leader willing to sacrifice his/her career to do it.  


I just always found it odd that we were abiding by rules made over 100 years ago by another country (Tsar Nicholas I held the convention) for a group that no longer exists (league of nations).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 23, 2010)

tellner said:


> Good points, but these mods to the M16 seem a bit like using a lathe as a can opener. You can do it with a lot of modifications and jiggery-pokery. But you might just be better off using a can opener. Or a bolt rifle as the case may be.


 
Why a bolt rifle? The problem is the round and the extended range, not the operating of the rifle.

The M-14 was well suited to that kind of environment. Something along the lines of the Springfield Arms SOCOM 16 would be an excellent solution that is still well suited to closer ranger operations.



The militaries likely solution, though, will be a modular improvement to the M4/M16 platform that will fire a .30 caliber round.  There is some merit to this as it allows a multi-caliber application to a single platform, thereby reducing the amount of trainining required for operators.  A single platform can perform a multitude of functions with minimal modification.


----------



## lklawson (May 24, 2010)

tellner said:


> Stop guzzling the Kool Aid for a moment.


Gently.



> Obama is carrying out Bush's policies to the letter with the same SoD and the same Pentagon Brass. He's escalated right on schedule, decided that expanding the invasion into Pakistan is just fine and has even set up a few new no-tell Black prisons and torture centers. That should give an erection to all of the Unending War crowd.


Yes, it's clear that Obama and the Democrat majority Congress are NOT the "doves" that they claimed to be.  How many of their "dove" constituents will notice?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 24, 2010)

Stick Dummy said:


> #1 I don't drink cool aid.


Gently.



> #3 Barack Obama said we were leaving Afghanistan, oops did he lie (again)


Yes, it's clear that Obama is not really interested in being a "dove" and only gave it lip service in order to attack Bush and the Republicans.  The Democrats, while under Bush, were pushing to "de-fund the war."  No hint of this "must be done to end the illegal war" push since Obama took office.

Nor will you see any.  The Democrats are NOT "doves" except when it is politically convenient for them to appear to be so.

But again, everyone: gently.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 24, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Since we're fighting a non signatory group (not even a nation), the conventions don't technically apply (lord knows they don't abide by them).  So we could in fact use the nasty stuff and have legal loophole to do so, the world media would crucify us and it would take a political leader willing to sacrifice his/her career to do it.
> 
> 
> I just always found it odd that we were abiding by rules made over 100 years ago by another country (Tsar Nicholas I held the convention) for a group that no longer exists (league of nations).



Fair enough; I'll accept that we have no legal obligation to refrain from using expanding rounds in Afghanistan.  Thanks for pointing it out to me.

I'll say that I doubt very much that we will stop using ball (FMJ) ammo, regardless of the legalities of the situation, if for no other reason than the current logistics.  I would also argue (actually continue arguing) that the issue is not the lack of expanding bullets hitting terrorist flesh, but the inability of our current 5.56 ammo to be as useful at the distances we're being engaged.

I have *not* been reading about high numbers of adversaries being shot and walking away.  I *have* been reading about our inability to engage the enemy with accurate rifle fire at the distances they are engaging us at.  This to me indicates not a bullet-shape argument but a distance argument.

A larger caliber would be superior and both weapons and ammunition are NATO approved, and millions of such surplus weapons are currently in our warehouses and ready for re-issue.  I'd prefer to see our troops re-armed with M-14's and even M1 Garands in Afghanistan than the current M16-based systems; at least for the patrols.


----------



## Archangel M (May 24, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The militaries likely solution, though, will be a modular improvement to the M4/M16 platform that will fire a .30 caliber round.  There is some merit to this as it allows a multi-caliber application to a single platform, thereby reducing the amount of trainining required for operators.  A single platform can perform a multitude of functions with minimal modification.



QFT. What they are waiting for is the question...


----------



## David43515 (May 24, 2010)

Well ther`s no doubt that at the ranges that kind of terrain makes available a heavier and more powerful caliber is called for. But when I read the article yesterday they were very clear that this isn`t that common of a situation. Yes, the Afgans have alot of the old British Enfields, but they have alot more Soviet AKs, so most of them have the same range limitations we have with the .223.Until it`s proved ineffective, I`m thinking the designated marksmen program might be enough.


----------



## knuckleheader (May 24, 2010)

tellner said:


> Stop guzzling the Kool Aid for a moment. Obama is carrying out Bush's policies to the letter with the same SoD and the same Pentagon Brass. He's escalated right on schedule, decided that expanding the invasion into Pakistan is just fine and has even set up a few new no-tell Black prisons and torture centers. That should give an erection to all of the Unending War crowd.
> 
> Political intervention? War is entirely political. It always has been. The problem is that when your Leader started waving his little saber around he had no clue what he wanted to do except for one *political* end. He wanted the slavish devotion and abject fear of the American sheeple. So he made all of you terrified enough to go along with a pair of stupid quagmires with no goals, no exit strategy, no plan other than "kill a lot of people in time for the next elections".
> 
> Media interference? I suppose criminals, cowards and cockroaches love the dark. But in a free society where the government is supposed to be responsible to the people there needs to be accountability. And the people need to know the truth. This war was and still is stage-managed by the Pentagon. *The atrocities have all been carefully hidden.* :BSmeter:The myth of the Glorious Crusade has been blasted at us unceasingly by politically reliable "embedded" journalists, carefully censored and without a shred of independence. Anything which reflects less than Kim Jong-il like religious devotion on the whole sordid mess is shouted down.


 
Haver another glass of cool aid, pah leazze. LOL


----------



## Archangel M (May 24, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Well ther`s no doubt that at the ranges that kind of terrain makes available a heavier and more powerful caliber is called for. But when I read the article yesterday they were very clear that this isn`t that common of a situation. Yes, the Afgans have alot of the old British Enfields, but they have alot more Soviet AKs, so most of them have the same range limitations we have with the .223.Until it`s proved ineffective, I`m thinking the designated marksmen program might be enough.




Good point. And while the Afghans were good at the ambush against the Soviets, they are FAR from trained riflemen capable of making 600+ M shots with their rifles. The ranges we are discussing are exactly the reasons we have designated marksmen, machine guns and arty+air.


----------



## David43515 (May 24, 2010)

Just slightly off topic, but I`m curious. I know snipers use match grade ammo. Is it strictly all FMJ/ball as well? Or do they use something with more expansion?


----------



## lklawson (May 25, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> Haver another glass of cool aid, pah leazze. LOL


This topic is clearly controversial with many people holding varying opinions.  Let's all, please, remain polite.

IOW, "gently."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

