Best weapon to replace the m16

[Gelgoog]

Marine Infantry is not Special Forces, they are line infantry and follow the same rules as other line infantry units

sorry meant to say "elite". they are not subject to the same procedures that the army is.

 

[Farnan]

sorry meant to say "elite". they are not subject to the same procedures that the army is.

They are not elite. And yes they are subject to the same restrictions.

 

[Rapax]

guess we have some problems with the m-16? the 5.56 round simply is not that great for use in very close quarters especially in short barreled rifles. the problem that their discovering in iraq is that often times, the bullet will not tumble at short ranges which is what causes the damage in the first place,

Uhm, the bullets are not supposed to tumble cause that would essentially defeat the purpose of them flying straight and accurate into the target.

as for soldiers not being able to choose their weapons, like i said the regular army does not get a choice, but any special forces units (including the marines) have seperate funds. they can buy whatever the want to use ( not individuals per say). that being said soldiers do get to pick from whats in the armory of what they want to use in these units. marines often have the choice of a sidearm, and seals, delta and rangers can buy their own sidearm ( like its always been). theres a difference between regular army, guard, reserves and special forces.

I really don't know where you get this from. Marines are not a special force, certain components like Force Recon are. Similarly Rangers are elite light infantry with a special operations capability and they certainly don't go buying their own sidearms. I remember reading about soldiers utilising sidearms of choice but nothing that indicates a widespread self procurement among elite and special forces like you seem to suggest.

Btw. you really don't have to put up a giant picture, a link or hiding it would do.

 

[Farnan]

The following is referred to as General Order Number One (G.O. #1). All U.S. servicemembers in Southwest Asia are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey the contents of this order. The bolded sections (introduction,3, 5, and 10) apply specifically to culture-specific restrictions.

G.O. #1 is based upon Islamic law and Arabic customs that prohibit or restrict certain activities which are generally permissible in western societies. Restrictions on these activities are essential to preserving good relations with the host nation. Therefore, under Title 10, United States Code, Section 164 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Title 10, United States Code Sections 801-946, all military personnel assigned or attached to duty with the Joint Task Force-Southwest Asia (JTF-SWA) and to USCENTAF (FWD) units located in the USCENTCOM AOR are prohibited from certain activities.

The following activities are prohibited:

1. Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the USCENTAF AOR.

2. Entrance into a mosque or other site of Islamic religious significance by non Moslems unless directed to do so by military authorities or required by military necessity, or as part of an official tour conducted with the approval of military authorities and the host nation.

3. Introduction, possession, use, sale, transfer, manufacture or consumption of any alcoholic beverage within countries of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In all other countries of the JTF-SWA/USCENTAF (FWD) AOR, the U.S. military will follow appropriate deportment and abide by host-nation laws and customs. Because of the high operational tempo and the various threats faced by U.S. forces in the region, it is prudent to exercise active control over certain activities in order to maintain good order and discipline and ensure optimum readiness. Accordingly, in all locations where alcohol is not prohibited by this General Order, commanders and unit chiefs a re directed to exercise discretion and good judgment in promulgating and enforcing appropriate guidelines and restrictions, regularly reviewed to ensure they are commensurate with current or foreseen operations and threats.

4. Introduction, purchase, possession, use, sale, transfer, manufacture or consumption of any controlled substances or drug paraphernalia. Prescription drugs must be accompanied by the original prescription label of the prescribing medical facility or authority.

5. Introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation or display of any pornographic photograph, videotape, movie, drawing, book or magazine or similar representations. For purposes of this order, "pornographic" means any medium which displays human genitalia, uncovered women's breasts or any human sexual act. It is intended to include not only "obscene items", but items of "art" which display human genitalia, uncovered women's breasts or any human sexual act. In addition, the introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation or display of any sexually explicit photograph, videotape, movie, drawing, book or magazine is also prohibited. For purposes of this order, Asexually explicit" means any medium displaying the human anatomy in any unclothed or semi clothed manner and which displays portions of the human torso (i.e., the area below the neck, above the knees and inside the shoulder). By way of example, but not limitation, are body building magazines, swim-suit editions of periodicals, lingerie or underwear advertisements and catalogues, as well as visual media which infer but do not directly show human genitalia, women's breasts, or human sexual acts. The prohibitions contained in this subparagraph do not apply to materials displayed or obtained by or from AFPTS, AAFES or MWR outlets in the JTF-SWA/USCENTAF (FWD) AOR.

6. Gambling of any kind, including sports pools, lotteries and raffles unless permitted by host-nation laws and service/component regulations.

7. Removing, possessing, selling, defacing or destroying, archeological artifacts or national treasures.

8. Selling, bartering or exchanging any currency other than at the official host-nation exchange rate.

9. Adopting as pets or mascots, caring for, or feeding any type of domestic or wild animal.

10. Proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice.

11. Taking or retaining individual souvenirs or trophies. Explanation of this prohibition is as follows:

(1) Private or public property may be seized during exercises or operations only on order of the commander based on military necessity. Such property will be collected, processed, secured and stored for later return to the lawful owner. The wrongful taking private property, even temporarily, is a violation of Article 121, UCMJ;

(2) Public property seized by the U.S. Armed Forces is the property of the United States. the wrongful retention of such property is a violation of Article 108, UCMJ;

(3) No weapon, munitions, or military article of equipment obtained or acquired by any means other than official issue may be retained for personal use or shipped out of the JTF-SWA/USCENTAF (FWD) AOR for personal retention or control;

(4) This prohibition does not preclude the lawful acquisition of souvenirs that can be legally imported into the United States;

12. Attendance at host-nation public disciplinary proceedings of any kind including public executions.

This is General Order No. One,

Read the bolded part.

 

[Gelgoog]

They are not elite. And yes they are subject to the same restrictions.

well if you had your ear on the gun community you'd know that the special units within the marines are using all kinds of off the shelf equipment purchased through the army to equip them. the regular army doesnt do this. and yes the marines are considered an elite branch of the army forces..thats just common knowledge. as a relatively small force they are basically guinea pigs in that they get first choice of all new equipment, they are allowed personal sidearms if they so desire because they mission is specifically oriented in assualt. they corp often will do small orders for specific units, or allow their soldiers to buy specific weapons. one current favorite amongst the marines are kimber .45 with taclites.
many companies also get similar small orders for units like AR-10 panther carbines, new production springfield m-14s, striker belt fed uppers for m16, ect. the regular army doesnt do this as they only have access to their own armories and almost never make outside purchases.

 

[Farnan]

well if you had your ear on the gun community you'd know that the special units within the marines are using all kinds of off the shelf equipment purchased through the army to equip them. the regular army doesnt do this. and yes the marines are considered an elite branch of the army forces..thats just common knowledge. as a relatively small force they are basically guinea pigs in that they get first choice of all new equipment, they are allowed personal sidearms if they so desire because they mission is specifically oriented in assualt. they corp often will do small orders for specific units, or allow their soldiers to buy specific weapons. one current favorite amongst the marines are kimber .45 with taclites.
many companies also get similar small orders for units like AR-10 panther carbines, new production springfield m-14s, striker belt fed uppers for m16, ect. the regular army doesnt do this as they only have access to their own armories and almost never make outside purchases.

Bolded is important.

Force Recon and elite units within the Marines get their choice of equipment.

And NO, NO, NO for the rest of your post. The Marines are not part of the Army, and as a branch are not elite. Furthermore, in general the Army gets new equipment faster than the Marine Corps, and it is a common complaint between them.

 

[Rapax]

The USMC is still subordinate to the Department of the Navy and are generally not a branch of the Army. Scheuch, you will also realize you're contradicting yourself when you first mention the Marines having a lot of old equipment and then telling us that they're being used as guinea pigs and generally are the first to get new stuff.

And once more, can you edit your post and hide that picture? I hate how it stretches the thread.

 

[Gelgoog]

Uhm, the bullets are not supposed to tumble cause that would essentially defeat the purpose of them flying straight and accurate into the target.

Charles Cutshaw: There have been similar reports from Afghanistan and the military has responded by adopting a heavier bullet for users of the M4 carbine. The problem is not inherent in the M16, which has a longer barrel. The bullet doesn't "tumble," but becomes less stable and fragments. The reason for this is too complex to explain here, but the problem you mention is basically due to the lower velocity of the bullet from the short-barreled carbine. The new heavier bullet seems to be performing well in the carbine.

The 223 tumbles in any other media other than air because the bullet wants to travel with its heaviest part, the base, forward. So, a soon as it hits flesh, the base starts to push forward, but then the bullet’s speed accelerates the rate at which the bullet is turning (yaw) and then one of two (or both) things happen. The bullet will then tumble and then depending on speed, tissue, bullet constructio0n, etc, the bullet may break apart under the force of tumbling. It is more a function of velocity than rate of twist.

Over the years the Army has increased the rate of twist on the M16/M4 barrels in order to handle heavier bullets. It has been suggested that the faster twist and heavier bullets currently in use don't yaw and break apart on contact as well as the older ones did, thus reducing the effectiveness of the round in combat. Not to mention the loss of velocity in switching from a 20" (M16) barrel to a 14" (M4) barrel. The first generation of M16's used in Vietnam supposedly produced far more devastating injuries than the current generation of M16/M4.

January 5, 2006: American troops in Iraq are discovering, through combat experience, that more changes are needed in the type of weapons they should carry. As the U.S. Army Special Forces have discovered, if you are well trained and know what you are doing, you should carry a pistol, in addition to your rifle. But not the official issue 9mm pistol, but something with a bit more stopping power. The Special Forces prefer a new model .45 caliber (11.43mm) pistol, although 10mm weapons are also popular. The reason for this is that you are most likely to be using the pistol indoors, where your target is going to be really close. You want to knock him down quickly, before he can get at you with a knife, or even his hands. Many troops are getting their own pistols, and most commanders have been lenient on this issue. The same applies to shotguns. Although the army and marines have bought a lot of them (the Benelli M4 Combat Shotgun is a particular favorite), there never seem to be enough of them for some units (that spend a lot of time raiding buildings in hostile neighborhoods.)

 

[Rapax]

Guess you just didn't explain what you meant by tumbling.

 

[Gelgoog]

The USMC is still subordinate to the Department of the Navy and are generally not a branch of the Army. Scheuch, you will also realize you're contradicting yourself when you first mention the Marines having a lot of old equipment and then telling us that they're being used as guinea pigs and generally are the first to get new stuff.

And once more, can you edit your post and hide that picture? I hate how it stretches the thread.

frontline units especially the marines, and special forces are considered testbed units for new equipment, this is how its always been. i also said they are using old equipment ( at least old designs). because they are used throughout the entire armed forces. its not contradicting myself, i never said any of them replaced old equipment, just that they have access to new equipment and are actively developing others to replace the old. every major small arms weapon system in the armed forces right now is on the block and being tested for future replacement. pistols, shotguns, rifles, machine guns, rocket and gernade lauchers...everything is being looked at. that being said units (usually upto individual commanders) can get access to new equipment especially to test from armament companies.

Guess you just didn't explain what you meant by tumbling.

it has great wound characteristics which have often been criticized as cruel because of the tumbling effect when it hits soft tissue. its one of those rounds that could hit you in the knee and travel up your body leaving fragements everywhere ( it breaks apart really easily). heavier rounds like the .308 tend to just punch right through creating a big cavitation. small rounds like the .223 often seek the path of least resistence. however on short barreled m4s and such its not getting enough distance and just making a clean exit wound. soldiers often reported enemies getting hit and not being fazed.

 

[Rapax]

frontline units especially the marines, and special forces are considered testbed units for new equipment, this is how its always been. i also said they are using old equipment ( at least old designs). because they are used throughout the entire armed forces. its not contradicting myself, i never said any of them replaced old equipment, just that they have access to new equipment and are actively developing others to replace the old. every major small arms weapon system in the armed forces right now is on the block and being tested for future replacement. pistols, shotguns, rifles, machine guns, rocket and gernade lauchers...everything is being looked at. that being said units (usually upto individual commanders) can get access to new equipment especially to test from armament companies.

Well, again, regular Marine Units don't use anything overly specialized that would distinguish them from their Army counterparts in that regard. I think you should drop this "special forces and marines" approach, as Marines have regular infantry as well as special forces, hence why the term "special forces" already includes all the units we'd be looking at without the need to give Marines a special place.

 

[Panzerbear]

guys, there is no point in arguing. 5.56mm NATO is a very mediocre CQB round (just like the Russian 5.45x39mm) simply because it does not provide enough kinetic energy / stopping power + it has a much higher potential for ricochet due to its velocity. so its not only the problem of M16 series rifles.

5.56mm and 5.45mm = sure painful death or very nasty wounds in best case scenario.

7.62mm = more dead people. instantly.

 

[Erwin Rommel]

yeah but recoil??

 

[Lawrence of Arabia]

guys, there is no point in arguing. 5.56mm NATO is a very mediocre CQB round (just like the Russian 5.45x39mm) simply because it does not provide enough kinetic energy / stopping power + it has a much higher potential for ricochet due to its velocity. so its not only the problem of M16 series rifles.

5.56mm and 5.45mm = sure painful death or very nasty wounds in best case scenario.

7.62mm = more dead people. instantly.

Except those who use the 5.56 ammunition do not want to use 7.62. To them, it is not worth sacrificing accuracy for a more stopping power. It just isn't necessary.

In the armed forces, you're taught to keep shooting at them until they're down. In the worst case scenario, the most you'll have to shoot into the torso are three shots. Thankfully, most rifles are designed with a three bullet burst-fire mechanism

What we're seeing now is the usage of the 6.8 mm Remington SPC round. It is the middle-ground between the 5.56 and 7.62.

 

[Norge]

Except those who use the 5.56 ammunition do not want to use 7.62. To them, it is not worth sacrificing accuracy for a more stopping power. It just isn't necessary.

When did the 7.62 turn out to be less accurate? Why do you think sniper rifles are in a higher caliber than 5.65?

 

[Lawrence of Arabia]

When did the 7.62 turn out to be less accurate? Why do you think sniper rifles are in a higher caliber than 5.65?

Okay, you can try to fire a .50 caliber Barrett Rifle multiple times from a standing position.

"The fact remains that soldiers would be able to carry fewer of the larger, 7.62mm, rounds. This is not a popular option among troops in the combat zone. Those combat troops know how to aim properly and take down the target, and find that the 5.56mm round does the job.

When a 5.56mm round hits one of those "slender" targets "that keep coming", what nobody mentions is that the serious wound (the idea that they cause little damage is incorrect) means that the target is probably going to bleed out in not too long (unless he gets treatment from a medic, which takes him out of the fight). This is because the 5.56mm round is a "tumbler" and will "tumble" at very high velocity. This causes enormous flesh and organ damage. Any bullet that hits the skeleton is going to knock the target down, but the 5.56mm causes more damage against soft tissue than the 7.62mm bullets. Troops have long been taught to aim at the torso or head. This is the sure way to take someone down with either round. Video footage of 5.56mm impacts is quite impressive. Nose around the net and you will find these videos.

Regardless, the old question is, does a soldier really want to sacrifice the superior range and accuracy of the 5.56mm for the high caliber and low velocity AK-47 round, or the smaller quantity of heavier US 7.62mm rounds? For many, the answer is no.

And further, being deeply engaged in a war is not the greatest of times to change weapon systems (especially in a modern age)."

 

[Erwin Rommel]

i remember one account of a guy practicing in his 50 cal sniper rifle

sure it was damn accurate but the recoil was so bad..........he didnt feel "right" for weeks

 

[Panzerbear]

I think the problem can be solved with the right mix of weapons among the troops and a improvement on already existing rounds.

who is to say that 7.62x39mm (AK round) can not be made much more accurate? did anyone even bother to work on it hard enough to expand on its capabilities? also, about the recoil - it can be solved with advanced recoil-compensating mechanisms as seen in AK-107/108 series or, even better, AEK-971...

the fact is that they can always give the 7.62mm weapons to the front line assault teams, but still have plenty of troops with M16s to back them up on medium ranges and designated marksmen/snipers on longer ranges.

lets say, in a 10-men squad, give 2 guys a 7.62mm assault rifle for CQB. it makes a lot of sense for modern combat, where the vast majority of fighting is done on distances of less than 100 yards.

 

[Erwin Rommel]

How long has been the dragunov?? are they being replaced??

 

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Also, it should be noted that 7.62mm is heavier, so you can carry fewer rounds than you can the 5.56mm.

 

[Panzerbear]

SVD have been wide-spread in the Soviet Army ever since the early 70s...

SVD is a very good all-around precision rifle for a designated marksman, but it does not meet modern 21st century precision requirements for snipers. SVD is currently being replaced by SV-98.

Also, it should be noted that 7.62mm is heavier, so you can carry fewer rounds than you can the 5.56mm.

well, one can argue that you need much less 7.62mm rounds to kill the same amount of people . they rip through anything - walls, trees, people, etc.
either way, you have machinegunners who carry around a giant weapon + over 500 rounds ammunition. I guess some people are just not pussies, huh?

 

[Erwin Rommel]

awww....sad they dont look like an elongated ak or sks any more

and i;m such a real fan for Russian weaponry

 

[mbilbo68]

either way, you have machinegunners who carry around a giant weapon + over 500 rounds ammunition. I guess some people are just not pussies, huh?

They are more stationary soldiers. You should not run across the street or the field when you are machine gunner. Anyone can pop a slow moving dude with ***load of ammo and a machine gun. Like shooting fish in a barrel. They are nice fire support, but thats what they are-fire support and suppression. GI's in general carry assault rifles and in Iraq' desert conditions carrying ***load of ammo and a huge gun will wear you out. Same in Afganistan high mountains.

So the real question is what kinda assault rifle is lighter than m16, is accurate and can put up enough lead to stop a terrorist?

 

[Panzerbear]

So the real question is what kinda assault rifle is lighter than m16, is accurate and can put up enough lead to stop a terrorist?

the HK G36C is probably the best at this point.

 

[Norge]

Okay, you can try to fire a .50 caliber Barrett Rifle multiple times from a standing position.

How is this relevant?

but the 5.56mm causes more damage against soft tissue than the 7.62mm bullets.

Complete opposite of what I learned during my conscription service.

Regardless, the old question is, does a soldier really want to sacrifice the superior range and accuracy of the 5.56mm for the high caliber and low velocity AK-47 round,

AK-47 is not the only rifle to be chambered in 7.62. I'm sure you would find the FAL, G3, Scar-H and Hk417 to have both superior range and accuracy to their 5.56 counterparts.

 

[Adar]

I have actually had the opportunity to fire assault rifles of both calibres (Swedish versions of G3 and FN FNC) with both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 mm ammo. I have however alot more experience with the 5.56 mm ammo.

Firing a AK 4 (ie Swedish G3) gives a significant recoil which makes most soldiers consider the "automatic fire" setting to mostly be a novelty item. I've never had the opportunity to try this but when firing double shots (aim and pull the trigger twice without reaiming) was my first shot generally low in the stomach and the 2nd one in the head area. Having a good firing position is very important so that you don't have to reaim excessivly after each shot.

The AK5 is alot smoother in action, the recoil barely effects your shooting. I've tried firing it without even using my shoulder for support just to see how easy it is to handle i a stressed situation. One excercise is to fire two shoots at a target that pops up 30m away for two seconds and atleast one of them must hit. I took the liberty to fire without shouldering the rifle (in this excercise you supposed to look over your sights to fire quickly rather than target) and was able to hit with both shots (with a second to spare). I cannot call myself a very welltrained soldier in this aspect (I am assigned to HQ duty) so I assume this is something that can be carried out by most frontline soldiers.

Therefor I prefer the AK5 over the AK4 in city combat since it allows me to carry 50% more ammo (20 per magazine for an AK4 and 30/mag for an AK5) and the weak recoil allows me to easily correct my aiming even while firing at my opponent. The downside is that I cannot fire through walls (this on the other hand lowers the risk of collateral damage) and I loose abit of my effective range (our manuals tell us that you can engage targets up to 500m with an AK4 and 300m with an AK5). The stopping power of the 7.62 vs 5.56 is not an issue I am especially worried about due to reasons discussed here below.

I have some pictures of what a 5.56x45mm NATO rifle bullet can do when fired from a Swedish AK5 (a modified version of FN FNC) at the Swedish standard issue protective helmet (mainly for shrapnel protection) and a plastic container filled with water.

Doesn't look like much...


Unless you look at it inside.


Or from behind.


This plastic container was filled with water, we're also mostly filled with water...
As you can see is the effect of a 5.56x45 NATO round quite devestating when it correctly tumbles and then fractionates (basicly the bullet can't withstand the friction force when travelling sideways through a medium with the density of a body). The problem is that if you fire at longer distances will the bullet loose so much speed that the bullet doesn't tumble and therefor simply "goes through". This is especially a problem with the M4 carbine compared to the M16 (or AK5) becuase the shorter barrel length gives it a lower muzzle velocity. A 7.62x51 mm NATO can tumble due to the same reasons that a 5.56x45 mm bullet can, the problem is that it is so much more stable that a normal human body doesn't offer enough resistance to make the bullet tumble. Atleast that's what the army instructors told me (The Swedish home guard uses AK4 and 7.62 ammo while the regular army uses AK5 which uses 5.56 ammo). I'm not really a gun nut but I like to know what's going on and the mechanics of the issue really intrests me. This link satisfies both my gun curiosity and my avid intrest of mechanics.

The Swedish army uses sharpshooters with modified AK4s to support the regular soldiers with AK5s pretty much like Czars idea. I am not sure on what proportions they use in the mixture but I think it is the best way to go. Use the AK5 for the mainstay fighting (ie short range fighting and ambushes) and then bring out the AK4 to make the "quality kills".

 

[Rapax]

well, one can argue that you need much less 7.62mm rounds to kill the same amount of people . they rip through anything - walls, trees, people, etc.
either way, you have machinegunners who carry around a giant weapon + over 500 rounds ammunition. I guess some people are just not pussies, huh?

One can argue but for the majority of soldiers I'd say it's just not true. If you can't kill someone using a 5,56mm rifle, do you suddenly become a better shot using 7,62mm ammo? You will find that hitting your target is the key here and not how much brick or wood your round can go through, hoping to hit something behind it. If you actually need to tear through cover in order to get at enemy soldiers, you can still use your squads machine gun. A 7,62mm mg will rip through without much problem but even a 5,56mm will penetrate most of these materials with continued bursts.
Also, it is simple logic that one can carry more 5,56mm rounds than they can 7,62mm rounds and has absolutely nothing to do with being a pussy. A rifleman still carries the same amount of weight with either calibre only by using 5,56mm that weight means more ammo.

 

[Panzerbear]

I am sure there is also a way to decrease the weight of 7.62mm... hard plastic casings or something?

 

[Rapax]

I am sure there is also a way to decrease the weight of 7.62mm... hard plastic casings or something?

You do know how hot these things get when fired, yes?

 

[Farnan]

The outer barrel gets hot after only a few dozen rounds, don't want to imagine how hot inside...

As for weight of 7.62mm over 5.56mm, I've carried both. During the Field Training Exercise at Fort Benning I was the Assistant gunner for the M240b Machine Gun, and carried around 400 7.62mm rounds, albeit blanks and 80 5.56mm rounds, also blanks. The 7.62mm rounds were far heavier than the 5.55mm rounds one-for-one, a significant matter considering the basic combat load for an Infantryman is 210 rounds so a minor change in weight can make a significant difference for a mobile soldier.

To the Swedish Military Poster: Yea we do drills like you talk about wear a target pops up and you fire two rounds. With the M68 CCO and a M16 it isn't that difficult, but with a M4 it would be easier, however we say both shots should hit though we do it from only 25m (its a reactive firing drill for MOUT).