# 5.56 vs. 6.8/6.5 continues



## WillBrink (Oct 24, 2008)

Some basic rehash of articles we have all read before, but it appears the debate about "upgrading" the 5.56 continues:


M4 Round Has Strong Competitors

October 10, 2008
Tactical Life|by André M. Dall'au

Eugene Stoner and ArmaLite designed and built a lightweight, powerful, small-caliber shoulder weapon after the Army asked for help to develop a 5.56x45mm chambered military rifle in 1957.

The Army, looking ahead to a jungle war in Southeast Asia, picked the lightweight design to equip its new, highly-mobile soldier. But the Army did not fully adopt the specific design requirements that made the original AR-15 operate effectively.

No one recognized that the ball powder substituted by the Pentagon had a greater fouling effect on the AR bolt assembly and chamber area. In addition, troops were not properly trained on how to clean their new rifles. The result was a weapon that was susceptible to jamming in the field, giving the new rifle a bad reputation right off the bat.

The poor initial performance, together with the marginal incapacitating ability of the 5.56 round, led to doubts about the Stoner design that linger today. But the mobile warriors of today are frequently getting in and out of vehicles and need a shorter weapon. The loss of active barrel length in the M4 further cuts the overall effectiveness of particular loads of the 5.56 round that many already considered to be too small and weak.

Recognizing the dilemma, military and civilian manufacturers are developing rounds for the AR platform that could bridge accurate lethality and shorter barrels. Two different approaches are strong contenders: the 6.8 SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) and the 6.5 Grendel.

Both the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel have a greater potential for immediate lethality than the 5.56, based on a heavier bullet traveling at a comparable speed. During tests, shots taken at distances ranging from 50 to 75 yards with the 6.5 Grendel at medium-sized wild hogs produced many first-round lethal hits, as well as immediate incapacitation. The bullets did not exit but fragmented during passage through the tissue.

The accuracy of 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC was excellent. The groups for each caliber met or exceeded previously published data. The ability to stay on target during full-auto fire was achievable and far exceeded any similar .308-caliber weapon on hand for controllability. Our overall conclusion is that both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC demonstrate superior effectiveness when compared to the 5.56 -- transferring more energy using a larger, purpose-formed bullet.

The 6.8 SPC is a well-engineered combination of velocity, accuracy and reliability for combat engagements up to 500 meters. With a trajectory very similar to the .308 WIN, the 6.8 SPC provides almost 50 percent more downrange, terminal-energy than the 5.56 NATO at 100-200 meters. However, at distances greater than 400 yards, performance of the 6.8 SPC is inferior when put up against the .308 Win or the 6.5 Grendel.

The 6.5 Grendel bullet is designed for energy retention during flight and has about twice the mass of the 5.56 NATO, with ballistics superior to the soviet-era 7.62x39 mm round. It maintains a devastating impact on tissue at longer ranges. The flat-shooting round has demonstrated one minute-of-angle accuracy beyond 600 meters, where the performance of the 6.8 SPC falls off.

Overall, both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC offer similar hard-hitting short-and-intermediate range performance with .308 accuracy out to intermediate ranges. The 6.5 Grendel has the edge past 600 meters. Given a choice, I would take the better ballistic bullet of the 6.5 Grendel, which has incapacitating lethality for most tactical situations from CQB to out beyond 600 meters. However, the logistical support for the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC has been inconsistent. In addition, the demonstrated ability of the 5.56 green-tip to penetrate light armor and steel plate better than the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC will be of interest to operators who might have to take on technicals when under fire.

Although no single caliber will provide the operator with a solution to every tactical problem, many warriors interviewed would still take the M855 5.56 due to overall satisfactory performance and ammo availability. One of the important aspects of the "is the M4 good enough" argument is to ensure that the "real" trigger-pullers have the loudest voice and overriding opinion about what works in the field.


----------



## 7point62 (Oct 27, 2008)

It goes round and round, don't it, like 45 ACP vrs 9mm. 6.8 is the big compromise. Like the article sez, the trigger-pullers and door-kickers are the ultimate judges.


----------



## 11B-B4 (Dec 1, 2008)

for me 5.56 hands down. you can carry more ammo and less recoil plus with the guys we're shooting weighing between 90-140 lbs on average i dont think you need much knock down power. 

But thats just one opinion. I think all the 6.8 guys are just ak lovers. fuckem


----------



## pardus (Dec 1, 2008)

11B-B4 said:


> for me 5.56 hands down. you can carry more ammo and less recoil plus with the guys we're shooting weighing between 90-140 lbs on average i dont think you need much knock down power.
> 
> But thats just one opinion. I think all the 6.8 guys are just ak lovers. fuckem



Or how about _us_ 6.8 guys are people that think we need a round with better overall performance than a 5.56 and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise?

Understand?



Might want to watch what you say around here that is insulting to members of this board, just some friendly advice...  ;) :2c:


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 1, 2008)

Or, to continue Pardus' thought a little further...I'd like to quote my ALL time favorite classic: (11B, check it out, this IS classic wisdom...not that the 5.56 is NOT a beautiful weapon and all, but: )



P. Beck said:


> Well, Rav, it's like this.  I'm old.  That makes me persnickety.  I bet on horse races after they've been run.  That's why on this last deployment I carried a regular old, rack-grade, solid plastic stock, M14 that had been made by Winchester in 1958. Stoked it with AP exclusively.  Used iron sights _*out to and including 700M*_.  It ain't a "death-ray" but it'll do till one gets here.  *Total failures of any kind: 0.0*
> 
> I require two things of my weapons: 1) Reliable as sunrise.  This is first and foremost. Non-negotiable.  2) As accurate as possible without violating requirement #1. Must shoot Minute-Of-Hajji, day or night, rain or shine, world without end, amen. 3) *The round has got to be able to do the job when it gets there*. Is there anyone who retains any lasting doubts about 7.62x51mm in this regard?
> 
> Truth is, I have seen enough aluminum gim-cracks, plastic goo-gaws and carbon-fiber whizz-bangs for one life-time.  Enough to know that the summbitches asking me to bet my life on it won't be anywhere to be found when it gets upgefucht. I'd rather carry a few extra pounds and have the fuquer work when I need it, than go light with something that fails at random intervals.



NOT exactly the 6.8 being discussed...but you get the idea (same theory anyway)!

and Kinda "corney", but good 6.8 round info:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMpN_-pcas"]YouTube - Future Weapons: The Barrett M468 Assault Rifle[/ame]


----------



## 11B-B4 (Dec 1, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Or how about _us_ 6.8 guys are people that think we need a round with better overall performance than a 5.56 and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise?
> 
> Understand?
> 
> ...



I didn't think preference of a caliber was insulting. Like i stated above its just one mans opinion. I wasnt taking a personal stab at anyone im just kinda tired of the debate. And yes you can tell me to fuck off too. I take personal offense to just about nothing :)

Im sure most of us have been shot at  before and watching 7.62x39 tracers rainbow in like paint balls at night and being able to dodge them from 300m makes me want something faster to shoot back at the rags with

the 6.8 out of a 14.5" tube is going at 2470fps 5.56 is moving at 2900 thats moving 18% faster and the larger diameter of the 6.8 slows down faster in the air than a 5.56 62g

Also iv'e never seen a terrorist wearing chest harnesses. I know i entered the war later than some and that may have been an issue back then but now its not.


----------



## MontereyJack (Dec 1, 2008)

Many of you have already read this report. For those that haven't I can email it to anyone who asks. It's a must read for anyone wanting to debate the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round.

Time for a Change. U.S. Military Small Arms Ammuniton Failures and Solutions. Written by LCDR Gary K. Roberts, USNR. Dated May 21, 2008.

Here is a quote from page 17 of the study, 
"6.8 mm offers superior terminal EFFECTIVENESS compared to 5.56 mm in all environments, including CQB & Urban, especially when fired from short barrels.​

​​​​​​Unlike 5.56 mm, 6.8 mm continues to demonstrate good terminal performance even after defeating common intermediate barriers, such as glass, walls, and automobiles, as well as loaded AK47 magazines, like those frequently worn in chest pouches by terrorists."​


----------



## 11B-B4 (Dec 1, 2008)

arizonaguide said:


> Or, to continue Pardus' thought a little further...I'd like to quote my ALL time favorite classic (sorry to keep repeating this one...but I still love it: (11B, check it out, this IS a classic that should be headed...not that the 5.56 is NOT a beautiful weapon, but: ))
> 
> 
> 
> NOT exactly the 6.8 being discussed...but you get the idea!



Im fine with the 5.56 m16 platform. As long as its maintained its a great carbine. But im also one of the guys that thinks too much is just too much. Like the 416 for instance it can shoot underwater :) cool. For Seals and SF dive teams great kit. For regular ground pounders just seems like too much money to spend on something that you dont really need and will probably never encounter. 
Ive done some water ops in recon but dont ever see the need for the training given the current AO in iraq. Some guys might get into it in the two rivers but hopefully not (gross). If we were in a war like vietnam where there was alot of rivers and streams id say go for it. I just dont see the need. Why I say stick with the 5.56 because theres alot of data out for it and people know it and work well with it. Id have to really shoot the 6.8 to love it and i probably wouldnt anyway unless i could stay on target like i could with recoil from a 5.56. If recoil was the same as 5.56 id probably go for it i guess. I just think from a carbine you need good follow up speed and i dont think the 6.8 is as good as the 5.56 in that specific respect. As far as medium range work like an SPR sure... go with the 6.8 but for off the rack work 0-300m i think the 5.56 is fine, but again just one mans opinion.

Edit: Also the standard gas system is quieter and smoother than the piston system when used with sound suppressors. Also a .260-.311 bore on a can is quieter than a .340-.360 bore and im a suppressor manufacture so thats another concern of mine, probably not of most people

Im out of this debate


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 1, 2008)

7.62NATO.
Cheap, available, flat shooting, effective at range....correct?
But that's a different thread.



arizonaguide said:


> and Kinda "corney", but *good 6.8 round info*:


I Was talking about (in the video) the rounds comparison, the M16's effectiveness history, and the _definition/redefinition of concealment/cover_. (not about shooting the Berrett (or 416) underwater).

ENERGY:
.223 @ 200yds = 648
7.62x38@200 = 882
6.8 @ 200yds = *1163* (better!)
*.308 @ 200yds = 1930*

AND, MOST FRONTAL AREA (to transfer that energy)
.223in
.277in (+/-)
.308in

Hmmmm, now which are readily available currently? (7.62 NATO, just sayin.)


----------



## AssadUSMC (Dec 1, 2008)

To me this is kind of like when .40 S&W came out.  Big numbers, similar package, etc. etc.  Personally, I HATE .40.  Too much recoil for what it is, too much blast.  Either give me a 9mm that I can put lots of rounds on target with good accuracy or give me a .45 (I prefer .45 if I have a choice).  Given that logic, I'd say I'm a 7.62 guy.

The other big issue is the supply chain.  Sure small units, contractor companies, etc. could transition to 6.8, but it'd take YEARS for the big mil to do it.  Also, while I know NATO is not the important figure it used to be, I'm sure some interoperability with our allies would be a big topic.

Just my $1.05.


----------



## WillBrink (Dec 1, 2008)

11B-B4 said:


> 5.56 is moving at 2900 thats moving 18% faster



Are you sure about that figure? Is that an M855? One of the major criticisms of 5.56 coming out of the 14.5 tube is the velocity is below what's required for it to perform as intended. Regardless, 2900 is only 200ft/ps above the approx 2700 required for the bullet to perform as designed vs just poking clean little holes in people, so the effective envelope for the rnd is very narrow:

"There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. This typically becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 m) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 CarbineM4 Carbine

..., if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a target is greatly reduced. 

Recently, advances have been made in 5.56 mm ammunition. The US military has adopted for limited issue a 77-grain (5.0 g) "Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262Mk 262

The Mk 262 is a match quality 5.56x45mm NATO round manufactured by Black Hills Ammunition made originally for the Special operations.The heavy, lightly constructed bullet fragments more violently at short range and also has a longer fragmentation range. 

... the ammunition has found favor with special forces units who were seeking a more effective round to fire from their M4A1 carbines.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/5.56_x_45_mm_NATO


----------



## pardus (Dec 1, 2008)

11B-B4 said:


> I didn't think preference of a caliber was insulting. Like i stated above its just one mans opinion. I wasnt taking a personal stab at anyone



Your preference of caliber has nothing to do with this.

Read this...



> *"I think all the 6.8 guys are just ak lovers. fuckem"*



You said everyone who like the 6.8 are just AK lovers and "fuckem" That's insulting to every member here who is a "6.8 guy" what ever that is.

Like I said, just watch what you say and how you say it, meaning doesn't always convey the way you intend it online.

Your input is very welcome, I don't want you to think otherwise.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 1, 2008)

And the "AK love" logic/corelation doesn't wash either:

ENERGY:
.223 @ 200yds = 648
7.62x38@200 = 882
6.8 @ 200yds = *1163* (much better at range than AK or M4!)

Although Will has some points about fragmentation, when it works. still....1163@200.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 1, 2008)

Blah blah  blahhhhhhhhhhhh!

If I ever make it to one of these ShadowSpear shoots, you guys can grab your 6.8’s 7.62’s and what ever else. I’ll bring my NM AR15 and a handful of 77’s and we will square off at 600 meters. See who walks away with the least amount of holes. “if anyone walks away” 

That way we can all finely agree that this discussion is the dumbest one to be having;)

Big Army is not going to change rifle’s or calibers, maybe better bullets. But that is still something that will take forever and a day in the real world! Mean while joe is out killing the shit out of our enemies with shitty M855 and 1/7 twist M4’s at whatever range he needs to!


----------



## shortbrownguy (Dec 1, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> Blah blah  blahhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> If I ever make it to one of these ShadowSpear shoots, you guys can grab your 6.8’s 7.62’s and what ever else. I’ll bring my NM AR15 and a handful of 77’s and we will square off at 600 meters. See who walks away with the least amount of holes. “if anyone walks away”
> 
> ...



Game, set, match...
This reminds me of the great debate of 9mm vs .45, Baretta vs. others.
Maybee we should spend more time worrying about basic marksmanship, then the next big thing that aint gonna happen anytime soon:2c::cool:.


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2008)

shortbrownguy said:


> ...the next big thing that aint gonna happen anytime soon:2c::cool:.



Guys with 10+ years in won't see it and guys just enlisting may still not see 6.8mm.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 1, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> Blah blah  blahhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> If I ever make it to one of these ShadowSpear shoots, you guys can grab your 6.8’s 7.62’s and what ever else. I’ll bring my NM AR15 and a handful of 77’s and we will square off at 600 meters. See who walks away with the least amount of holes. “if anyone walks away”



Sounds good.  But let's make that 900 or 1000 meters, behind an automobile or sand berm. :cool:

I'm not bashing the 5.56 exactly, just sayin 7.62 numbers are better, and it's available. Some folks (SOF not "Big Army") _ARE_ using M-14's, correct? Does the "new" SCAR (the "short term" future?) not come in 7.62 (also) for a reason?

I mean, you're right ...we could have not even started this thread..as the 6.8/6.5 is YEARS away, if then.
But we did, so...


----------



## pardus (Dec 1, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> Guys with 10+ years in won't see it and guys just enlisting may still not see 6.8mm.



My guess is by the time the Army gets serious about a change in caliber we'll be looking at another technology, rail gun, laser, darts, fucking plasma lol

I love using the 5.56, it's very accurate and with no recoil, it's just a POS at trying to punch through anything other than flesh, if I had my druthers I'd take a larger cal, I don't so I'll take the 5.56 and I'm happy with that.

But mark my words everyone, 5.56 doesn't do shit to ZOMBIES! you've been warned!


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 1, 2008)

Exactly...freakin Zombies. 
Check out the future:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf <<<< HERE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technologies <<Program Description

"The Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) program is funded by the Joint Service Small Arms Program, with the goal of significantly reducing the weight of small arms and their ammunition."

Design of an LSAT battle rifle began in 2008. Half way into 2008, the designs are nearing completion. The rifle designs are made to use the same cartridge as developed for the LMG, and this means separate rifles are being designed for the _cased and caseless cartridges_. Design began with seventeen concepts; after the concepts were investigated and trade-offs were analysed, only two remained for the cased round, and two for the caseless round. The concepts involve two magazine approaches, both of which are focussed on high capacity: one uses the standard approach of placing inside the magazine springs that feed rounds into the weapon; the other uses a 'weapon powered' approach, presumably to reduce the extra weight and space that springs create in magazines. If any of the rifle designs use the same swinging chamber mechanism as the LMG, they should be well suited to a bullpup layout, since the forward ejection of the push-through feed-and-ejection mechanism could easily be extended to achieve full ambidexterity, which is a problematic absence in most bullpups. Even in other configurations, the push-through mechanism lends itself very well to ambidexterity: the G11 demonstrates this. The rifle designs are undergoing the same simulated, structural, and kinematic analyses as the LMG."

"The LSAT program uses a 'clean slate' design and had no requirements imposed on abiding by contemporary ammunition and weapon standards. Despite this, the program is using the M855 5.56x45mm round to provide comparison with existing weapons. The program has listed scalability of the ammunition calibre as a requirement, and its pursuit of a very light company machine gun would require a larger round. Therefore, _the program seems set towards a more accurate, harder-hitting round (such as the 6.5 mm Grendel or 6.8mm Remington SPC)."_

AZG Engineering Inc. caseless swinecoat(tm) ammunition testbed XAZG-1: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/4263421.html


----------



## P. Beck (Dec 2, 2008)

More to the point I think:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 2, 2008)

As for 7.62 or 6.8 vs. 5.56 @ a 1000 yards: I have grouped 1MOA consistently and I still prefer a NM AR in long range matches…

As for shooting through a barricade @ 1000 yards with any of the above and killing/ wounding your target. Good luck ;)

5.56 is not going to be replaced (big Army) b/c joe in the field doesn’t want it replaced. NATO doesn’t want to replace it, the army leadership doesn’t want to replace it and our new president is not going to allow the money for it to be replaced…

SOF may look for bigger and better, it’s all good. They need bigger and better for some missions. However, big Army has these things called Machine guns (crew served weapons) that give use fire superiority over our enemy. If that fails, then we have mortars, artillery and close air support. Rest assured that we have the means to deliver devastating and crushing blows to our enemy at the wink of an eye.

So called problems with 5.56 is that it doesn’t have the knock down power to kill the threat and in return takes multiple hits to kill the threat, right? Well last time I checked joe is not fighting the war with one rifle. He is moving in fire teams, squads, and platoons and in most cases company size elements. Unlike SOF they do not run around in small elements, where killing a threat can in some cases be an individual responsibility. In the Infantry a TL/ SL determines the threat size in the initial contact, if he does not have 3 to 1 odds. Meaning 3 of our guys to every 1 of theirs. He will use indirect/ CAS and more then likely wait for supporting elements or break contact.

Your basic soldier is not going to have superior marksmanship skills, he is not going to have a long lengthy back ground in training in stress firing ranges and he is probably not going to be as experienced in direct contact. There fore he will make lots of mistakes and will learn through trial and error. Why? b/c big Army relies on technology and equipment more then training. It’s been that way for a while now. SOF has been able to successfully merge their training with their technology and equipment, making them a better force. That’s why they are called “special”! They have the brighter, better trained, better equipped personal. 

So if SOF wants a 6.8 or 7.62 rifle or even an “intergalactic death ray”, I support it 110%. But if you are trying to push it out to the big conventional combat arms Army, I will tell you to give me the money in bullets and range time and allow me to train my joe’s to a level, where they will not need the new caliber and in return I will show you what a true sledge hammer approach to low intensity conflict looks like!


----------



## AWP (Dec 2, 2008)

One other thing that is lost in the 5.56 vs. 6.8 discussion is NATO's involvement in all of this. For better or for worse we're in bed with NATO so us shifting to 6.8 is unlikely unless we get NATO to sign off on it (or we tell NATO to get bent, not that I'm opposed to this I just don't see it happening).

Besides, look at the second page in the excellent PDF posted by P. Beck. Training and a reliable weapons system should be addressed before we even start with ammunition.

Here we are 7 years into the GWOT and I know of NG combat arms units still using the M16A2. My old NG SF BN was issued the M4 in '98 so even 10 years later, 7 of which are at war, and some units haven't received new weapons. Imagine if tomorrow the Army came out and said the 6.8 allowed a n00b to shoot sub 1 MOA at infinity scoring headshots on God.....you still won't see 6.8 in numbers in the field for years and years to come.

For the short term better ammo and training would do wonders for our guys, especially the training. If you are talking introducing a new caliber into the supply system and potentially bucking the trend with NATO politically we'd be better off doing so in a new weapons platform with the new round....and that is something that would take years and years before a shoot off would begin, much less fielding the new weapon and 6.8 ammo.

A discussion about 6.8 is a great one to have, but we really should wonder about the training (especially live fire) PFC Snuffy is getting before going to the Box.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 2, 2008)

*to quote from the original post:*



WillBrink said:


> The poor initial performance, together with the marginal incapacitating ability of the 5.56 round, led to doubts about the Stoner design that linger today. But the mobile warriors of today are frequently getting in and out of vehicles and need a shorter weapon. The loss of active barrel length in the M4 further cuts the overall effectiveness of particular loads of the 5.56 round that many already considered to be too small and weak.
> 
> Although no single caliber will provide the operator with a solution to every tactical problem, many warriors interviewed would still take the M855 5.56 due to overall satisfactory performance and ammo availability. One of the important aspects of the "is the M4 good enough" argument is to ensure that the "real" trigger-pullers have the loudest voice and overriding opinion about what works in the field.



SO, _*If there is a question about the ability of the 5.56 *to get the job done_, does anyone know of a _current_ NATO round that can,:doh:  Instead of trying to develop some "new" wildcat/hybrid bullshit, and trying to get some new supply chain thing going. 
WHY don't we use some existing round *already proven*? (like...maybe...7.62NATO?):2c:

The true SAD answer: $$$$$$$$ already invested. (Washington, Lobbyists, etc).

_If only_ it _were_ true that ""real" trigger-pullers have the loudest voice".
Sadly, I've worked government contracts/engineering enough to know that's only about 49% true.


----------



## pardus (Dec 2, 2008)

arizonaguide said:


> WHY don't we use some existing round already proven? (7.62NATO?):2c:



Same reason, different round means different rifle and all the logistics that go with that. Might as well change the round to something better while you're at it, it really isn't going to make a lick of difference if you need to change the rifle anyway. :2c:

And the money issue? PFFT! load of shit IMO.

Tell the fucking Air Force they aren't gettiong _ONE_ F-22, that'll pay for the change of weapons system by itself.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 2, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Tell the fucking Air Force they aren't gettiong _ONE_ F-22, that'll pay for the change of weapons system by itself.



I can't argure with that Bro, and that was my point...it's Lobbyists, etc...and not the trigger pullers making 51% these decisions.  I've seen that shit with my own eyes.
(this I do have experience with from the engineering/boardroom side!)
And it pisses me off when you folks lives are at stake.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 2, 2008)

The truth is that the only people who have wanted a new caliber and new weapon system are SOF personal and other people who frankly are not qualified in my personal opinion to make that choice.

The Vietnam era Stoner AR 10/ M16 system has been developed into an unbelievable battle rifle. Capable of accuracy better then any other rifle in use by any other military. Sure the first runners had major problems and as in any new rifle, soldiers had problems from that and suffered in the field as a result. But the modern AR15/ M16 series rifle has overcome these issues and set a standard that is yet to be matched.

•	Sub MOA out to 800 meters with match grade barrel and ammo.
•	One of the lightest combat rifles in use.
•	Modular in every since of the word.
•	Reliability comparable to any other accurate battle proven rifle.
•	Over 40 years of “COMBAT” use.
•	Train ability and use far beyond any other rifle used in today arena.

I will agree that the US military has been slow to add some of these features to their standard inventory. But there have been a lot of clowns coming in taking these resources away, by pushing for a new rifle and a new caliber. Thus slowing the progress of the “combat” solders who have opted to fix problems learned in “combat”. Things such as:

•	Unreliable magazines (Magpul has addressed the issue with P mag’s)
•	Reliability (Otis developed better cleaning supply for combat conditions)
•	Carbon build up in the chamber (Knights Armament addressed it with a gas piston system)
•	Better accuracy (AMU addressed with NM barrels and NM ammo)
•	Better optics (ACOG and EoTech developed and perfected combat optics)
•	Knock down power (Train better shooters head shots will always win)
•	Penetration issues (We have mortars, artillery and CAS! Train them and the allow them to use it)

NATO is who we fight with, we are not loners and we do not need to be. Taking on the world is not our business, defending our freedoms and the freedoms of our allies is. There for we need to be able to maintain a supply system that works for us and our NATO allies. Changing calibers will cause massive logistical problems for all sides. Changing rifle’s presents a major training issue for all of our forces and then you have to pick who gets the new rifle? What role do they play and will it be affective in the hands of that force? That brings us back to SOF, they have that ability due to their small numbers and again having the best and brightest soldiers.

Funding is another issue. Why should we fund a new system and caliber that requires more training and more testing and more fielding and more logistics to support? When we already have the ball rolling to fix our problems through simple implication of products readily available. Why not build on our training programs and maximize our ability of technology and equipment by matching with proper advanced training? Why do commanders have the ability to acquire hundreds of thousands of dollars in optics and equipment, but have trouble getting ammo and range time?

Training:

The only added training to our marksmanship has been more in-depth close quarter’s marksmanship. In more cases they have removed more from our marksmanship training and replaced it with computer generated training that is not beneficial to the shooter.  Why are we training our force to shoot a pop up range that takes one bullet to knock the target down, when “combat” has shown us that it takes more hits? Why are we cutting the range to 300 meters when the rifle and ammo is capable of 800? Why are we setting lower standards and accepting these lower standards? 

In regards to redeployment training (MARKSMANSHIP) Soldiers receive basic PMI and then group and zero with 18 rounds. Then they group and zero their optic with 18 rounds. Then they fire 40 round Iron and 40 rounds optic for qualification. After this they will move on to NBC fire that will be 20 rounds.  Then you have night fire that consist of 15 rounds.  For a grand total of 151 rounds fired and that’s to get a soldier on the plane heading to a combat zone! WTF?

Now the FM allows for more ammo and training, such as short range marksmanship (SRM) and squad designated marksman (SDM) however there is no clear cut amount of ammo used in this training. What the Army has done is add video media training systems to help in this area. Saving bullets and money and allowing solders to continue to train on marksmanship. I personally think this is a piss poor plan.

How do you fix it? Well stop complaining about better bullets and better rifles, stop wasting money and time on researching these bigger better toys and fund the people who know how. Allow them to make the changes necessary, allow them the resources to fix the problem and allow them to take our very capable rifle to it’s fullest potential. Then if we can find something better or do something better, we will have the properly trained people with the proper feed back to make those changes known…
  :2c:


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 2, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> How do you fix it? Well stop complaining about better bullets and better rifles, stop wasting money and time on researching these bigger better toys and fund the people who know how. Allow them to make the changes necessary, allow them the resources to fix the problem and allow them to take our very capable rifle to it’s fullest potential. Then if we can find something better or do something better, we will have the properly trained people with the proper feed back to make those changes known…
> :2c:



Well freakin put, JAB.   I'm sold.  Now, how do we get that message to Washington?

FREE Training: (for what it's worth)
For what it's worth, anyone who is CONUS, there is a place where a Iraq/Afgh vet can get a free 5 day Carbine class at Gunsite Academy here in Arizona during the week of August 10-14, 2009.  (I said FREE!). Or, pistol class July 20-24.
Link's here:http://gunsite.com/courses/carbine.html and guaranteed to fire more than 151 rounds.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 2, 2008)

arizonaguide said:


> Well freakin put, JAB.   I'm sold.  Now, how do we get that message to Washington?



*Marketing! Sales! Reliable Product!*

Step 1: Find a unit willing to spend the money in the right places.

Step 2: Test the unit at current level of training on a much more realistic standard, record the findings.

Step 3: Equip the unit with the already available products.

Step 4: Build a solid training program that will incorporate the lessons learned and changes necessary to build a shooter.

Step 5: Train the unit in this program and develop them to become proficient in the higher standard. Do not allow for the standard to lower.

Step 6: Test the unit after training on the new standard, record the improvement.

Step 7: Compute the data and show the over all increase in proficiency in the unit, show the commander how his unit has improved. 

Step 8: Evolve the training through realistic after action reviews. Implement changes where necessary and allow the program to be a living system constantly changing.

Step 9: Have the unit commander push it through his chain of command and push for the program to run more diagnostic tests through out the army as a whole.

Step 10: Deploy these test units into proper combat areas to test the over all effectiveness in combat operations. AAR’s and lessons learned, build the program further.


Washington is going to give the military commanders what they need, you have to get the commanders to say we need it.


----------



## pardus (Dec 2, 2008)

Couple of points I want to address...



J.A.B. said:


> Capable of accuracy better then any other rifle in use by any other military.
> 
> Is that a verifiable fact? How was this conclusion  reached?
> 
> ...


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 3, 2008)

That's my question:  _IS the M4 the BEST piece of kit there is out there_?  Or, as was quoted in the original post: "The poor initial performance, together with the marginal incapacitating ability of the 5.56 round, led to doubts about the Stoner design that linger today"...which is what started this debate.

Not talking about supply chain or politics, but *ballisticaly* the numbers point to the 6.8, or the 7.62 NATO...for increasing the odds of ONE SHOT STOPS.

It's my understanding that as soon as we went to the 1 in 7 twist barrel, we "stabilized" the bullet, and lost 40% of the bullets destructive power which was resulting from tumbling wound ballistics, and now we put a carbine size barrel on it to further lose volocity (ie: fragmentation) effects.

_You now have a round that is *less than 650ftlb energy out past 200yds*...with a .223caliber hole...and none of the tumbling/fragmentation effects the weapon was designed for_.  I understand the Russians are smart enough to NOW go to a round (hollow inside) that at least results in expansion.

Compare that to the 6.8 @ 200yds = 1163 (_almost 2X better_!) or *7.62NATO @ 200yds =* *1930 
(almost 3X better!!!!!) *out past 200yds.

Take a read:http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf


----------



## 11B-B4 (Dec 3, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Same reason, different round means different rifle and all the logistics that go with that. Might as well change the round to something better while you're at it, it really isn't going to make a lick of difference if you need to change the rifle anyway. :2c:
> 
> And the money issue? PFFT! load of shit IMO.
> 
> Tell the fucking Air Force they aren't gettiong _ONE_ F-22, that'll pay for the change of weapons system by itself.



Not to go off subject but i think this was the problem with the Armour issue concerning the Pinnacle armor. Too expensive for the army budget. If the airforce would just fuck off for one second and step back maybe we could outfit our guys with something that can actually protect them.


----------



## shortbrownguy (Dec 3, 2008)

11B-B4 said:


> Not to go off subject but i think this was the problem with the Armour issue concerning the Pinnacle armor. Too expensive for the army budget. If the airforce would just fuck off for one second and step back maybe we could outfit our guys with something that can actually protect them.



I agree the AF spends way out to much, but you may want to do some research as to why Pinnacle was black balled from the DOD. It had nothing to do with its cost:2c::2c:;).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 3, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Is that a verifiable fact? How was this conclusion reached?
> 
> *It’s been proven through international competition…*
> 
> ...





arizonaguide said:


> That's my question:  _IS the M4 the BEST piece of kit there is out there_?  Or, as was quoted in the original post: "The poor initial performance, together with the marginal incapacitating ability of the 5.56 round, led to doubts about the Stoner design that linger today"...which is what started this debate.
> 
> *Yes it is IMHO!*
> 
> ...




*Training is the key gentlemen; we have the proper equipment and research. The problems have been addressed. We simply need to implement the changes and train the force…*


----------



## HOLLiS (Dec 3, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> *Training is the key gentlemen; we have the proper equipment and research. The problems have been addressed. We simply need to implement the changes and train the force…*



IMHO, that about says it all.   It is cheaper to buy gizmos that it is to train.  Everything tool out there has it's own set of pros and cons.  In the changing battlefield, skill of the Soldier, their training is probably the most key element.  

The tools we have are not obsolete and are comparable or better than any enemy we would face on the battle field.  


I would like to add, weapons development is also key to the future.  Again buying better tools does not automatically make better soldiers.  


The other note, is for every weapon that is developed, people develop a counter weapon or defense to that weapon.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 3, 2008)

*Who do I write to?*

You guys are the experts.  I definately am just trying to piece together the "real story" as it were. My motivation is that I want you folks safe and to come home in one piece, and have the "best kit' while there.
And I have no problem writing my congressman and raising hell about getting you guys the Kit that you need (as much as I can).

JAB, I admire your passion and knowlege about the issue, and appreciate the rundown.
Thanks, Bro...I'm learning as fast as I can.

TRAINING does sound like it's a joke when you send someone into combat with 151rounds of training...as I understand it takes about 3000 to even start to be proficient.
WHO do I contact to bitch about this fact that may be able to do something.
(remember, I'm a civi that can raise a little more hell, and get away with it (so to speak)).  Perhaps a letter to my Senator McCain.

*All I can do is look at it from a concerned engineering type Alaskan Moose hunter perspective that's seen the ballistic/wound differences between .223, .243, and larger .30cal stuff...and sees the effectiveness of the larger rounds with more energy.*

The last thing that really pisses me off is that you guys don't get to use the expanding rounds similar to the Russian stuff.  Fuck that Hague agreement. I don't know if you WANT to use HP...but you sure as hell should have that option...and I will include that in my letter.:2c:


----------



## pardus (Dec 3, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Is that a verifiable fact? How was this conclusion reached?
> 
> *It’s been proven through international competition…*
> 
> ...



That's a cop out, firearms training isn't hard, it's just time and bullets.
If we had that mentality we'd still be using old outdated equipment.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 3, 2008)

*WTF you REALLY want from the "trigger pullers" point of view?*

So, Folks,
Help me "outline" a letter to McCain (or whoever) telling them WTF you want from the "trigger pullers" point of view...and I'll be happy to author it and raise hell. Make me a list, and I'll raise hell: 

1. _*More fucking training *than 151 rounds...(more funding?)_
2. _*More energy at 300+ yards*_...
3. etc...
etc.
(my arrogance knows no bounds...and maybe this is _my way _to be in the fight...)

_IF_ we can come to some agreement as to what the LIST should be...I can be a "goddamned concerned" citizen.
This shit actually works/makes a difference...I've done it before.

Who the hell is the Armed Services Appropriations guy now that Stevens is a felon?:doh: I'll work on this...you make the list. (consensus, dammit!) 1.training, 2. Energy past 300yds, 3. ?????


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 3, 2008)

Okay we are getting silly about this; it simply comes down to beans and bullets. SOF has a bigger better budget, which allows them to try better equipment and field better equipment. They have a mission different then the conventional combat arms, that requires much greater needs then big army needs.

I am by no means saying lets not equip our conventional soldiers with the best kit, I am saying lets be “smart” about how we spend the money. If joe’s rifle is failing him (it’s not), the we look at the reason’s why it is, then we look at how it can be reduced or stopped. Then we add up the cost of how much the fix is. The areas where issues have accrued where the M16/ M4 has fallen short, have been addressed. However, the equipment is not being fielded to the soldiers. Why?

1.	The mass majority of soldiers are so poorly trained in understanding their rifle they did not complain of the problem, they simply said my weapon doesn’t work.

2.	 The people who did understand were silenced by the US Military leadership, mainly b/c the leadership wants money spent else where.

3.	These people who did understand these problems left the US Military and developed the equipment and is currently trying with slow progress to get it in the trigger pullers hands. Most of the time at the expense of the trigger puller who cares.

Now portions of the US Army have realized the training down falls and have made semi successful attempts in change. However, the change has come slow and has not improved enough to warrant a change in main battle rifle. Soldiers who care spend their own money to learn from out sourced training and to acquire better equipment for use in the field. This is true not only in Rifle equipment/ marksmanship training, but also in other areas of equipment. Such as individual carrying equipment, boot’s, hand held radios, comfort equipment and mission essential technology.

Understandably, the US Military can not keep up with every individual soldiers equipment need’s and or wants. However, they have come up with reimbursement programs to help solders replace money that has been spent. That alone shows that the Military realizes that there is a problem.

Prior to even considering my Military service I was competing in marksmanship from the age of 12 years old, so I can honestly say I knew what good marksmanship skills took prior to ever receiving BRM (Biggest joke I ever seen) at Ft Benning Ga.

My background in this area, is that I have deployed in 2003-2005 and received half assed equipment and training. My unit and I spent several hundreds of dollars of our own money replacing bullshit equipment and attempted to get training from anywhere we could. To include having SOF personal train us in our pre/post mission down time. If you take a look at my profile pictures you will find OIF I&II pictures. Look at the equipment my self and my fellow soldiers are wearing, you will see that a majority is not standard issue and is bought from several different companies owned and operated by prior service military personal.

I returned from my first deployment and was offered a chance to implement some change in the training environment. I took this job in late 2005 and slowly realized that the problem is in the leadership of the US Military. I worked as a small arms instructor, teaching basic FM and advanced marksmanship. I have taught Regular, National Guard and Reserve component Army, Air Force along with Navy and Marine personal. I have also trained SOF personal from the Army and Navy components. I spent 6 months training soldiers and then moved to Instructor development, where I was asked to help develop better more realistic training. I spent almost 2 years fighting with every Major and above on budget, training time, range time, ammunition, and most of all them being simply afraid to get out side of the FM’s. I became tired of the bullshit and realized that my experience had become out dated. I then left the training environment, to volunteer for the deployment I am currently on.

So at the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I might have a slight idea of what I am talking about.

I by no means now it all, I have only a small portion of understanding on what should happen and what changes should/ need to be made. I only know what I know, that is why I stay out of the subject when it comes to the SOF area, b/c simply I have no personal knowledge as to what they need. However, conventional combat arms (aka Infantry) I do and it’s a much bigger issue then simply saying we need a new rifle.

For example on training issues:

1.	Most soldiers do not understand simple wind and gravity and how it will affect the bullet at longer range.
2.	Most soldiers are taught to raise their hand on the firing line if a stoppage occurs and they are allowed to be an “alibi” firer?
3.	Most soldiers are unable to hit targets at a range of 250m +
4.	Most soldiers do not know how to properly clean their rifle or lubricate it. Such as, why would you build up carbon in the riffling/ chamber after a group & zero/ Qualification day; Then GI the piss out of it, cleaning all of the carbon out? And then they wonder why their zero changes!
5.	Most soldiers simply go through the motions and get through the training b/c we lie to them and tell them they are the best trained.
6.	Most soldiers will go a 20 year carrier and have only fired their qualification (151 rounds) twice a year.

It’s a “LEADERSHIP” and “TRAINING” problem. Not a problem with the rifle…


In order to fix the problem, it will have to be fixed through our own leadership. Again Marketing, Sales and a good product!



PS. pardus762 You are sooooooooooo gay it is not even funny!


----------



## pardus (Dec 3, 2008)

You blowing me, doesn't make ME gay :eek: 


Good post MOFO!


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 3, 2008)

So, any bitchin letters I can write/calls/emails etc...to Senators?
I'm good at that shit, and and I can sure "rattle the shit out of a few cages" about funding, if nothing else!



Can't help with that gay shit, boyz, yur on yur own with that shit!


..and just to make sure you hear me:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3A7J898wgs"]YouTube - Hot chick shooting the Barrett .50 Cal[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXSuZHNO548"]YouTube - HOT CHICK CAN SHOOT[/ame]

Sorry Will, I know I sidetracked the thread a little there with that video.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 3, 2008)

arizonaguide said:


> So, any bitchin letters I can write/calls/emails etc...to Senators?
> I'm good at that shit, and and I can sure "rattle the shit out of a few cages" about funding, if nothing else!



I really think it would have to come from with in the ranks, at the end of the day the military runs the military...

It could be possible to have a Senator, request research in improving training/ equipment from with in the ranks. However, the military will choose who conducts the tests and of course they will be aproved by the leadership. Maybe a request from an out side PMC to research the down falls and areas at where the miitary can improve...:confused:


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 3, 2008)

Thanks JAB.
I will put somethingtogether, and run it by you and Pardus, and see what ya think.  A little congressional pressure could go a long way on that "151 rounds to combat" shit.  And I'm just the arrogant prick to do it...(tactfully, of course)
I've done this type of thing before with quite good success. McCain is pretty decent (when he's not busy campaigning).
One cool thing that engineering taught me is the "advantage" (results)you can get when you apply the leverage in just the right point.


----------



## car (Dec 3, 2008)

I've stayed away from posting here because I'm not a shooter.

But I had some time today, and read thru the whole thing.

My guys "pull the trigger" by hitting the "ENTER" button.

Having said that, I'm solidly with JAB.

If we're fighting a shooting war, then our Soldiers must know how to shoot.

JAB's right, one guy in the squad starts shooting, then everyone else does. Effective, but not quite to the point.

Any Soldier who is sent into (whatever) theater, ought to be able to hit what he/she is aiming at. Is that a crazy concept?

But back to the basic premise - we need to spend more time training our Soldiers on the range.

I spent more time convincing (screaming, yelling, grabbing.....) my Soldiers that their weapon wasn't an inconvenience, but a tool and a life-saver.....:doh:

"Why do I have to carry my weapon to the porta-potty, SGM"

"Do you want to die in a blue, plastic shitter, with your pants around your ankles, because it was inconvenient to have a weapon when you were attacked?"

:2c:


----------



## 11B-B4 (Dec 4, 2008)

car said:


> I've stayed away from posting here because I'm not a shooter.
> 
> But I had some time today, and read thru the whole thing.
> 
> ...



Thats actually funny because on of my brothers buddies in Samara was taking a shit when a haji open his shitter door and tried to rip him out of the wooden shitter on the edge of their green zone in broad daylight. The haji was killed but they set up SOP for people going to the shitters on the edge of thier PB's green zone by the BP's to bring an m9 with them and have it at the ready should that happen again.


----------



## 8'Duece (Dec 4, 2008)

11B-B4 said:


> Thats actually funny because on of my brothers buddies in Samara was taking a shit when a haji open his shitter door and tried to rip him out of the wooden shitter on the edge of their green zone in broad daylight. The haji was killed but they set up SOP for people going to the shitters on the edge of thier PB's green zone by the BP's to bring an m9 with them and have it at the ready should that happen again.



I walk around my own home with a weapon on my hip most of the time.  Can't imagine being in a war zone and leaving any of my weapons to take a shit. :uhh:


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 4, 2008)

Amen, 82!!



J.A.B. said:


> It could be possible to have a Senator, request research in improving training/ equipment from with in the ranks. However, the military will choose who conducts the tests and of course they will be aproved by the leadership. Maybe a request from an out side PMC to research the down falls and areas at where the miitary can improve...:confused:



JAB, This letter to McCain will go out tonight, Bro! 

I will be sending something like this: (?)

* SEE JAB's changes and my finalized...below *


Folks, PM me back before 0200 tonight if corrections/additions need to be made. Will be faxing at 0200 AZ time.
Also please feel free to copy/revise/correct and send to your senator/congressman.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 4, 2008)

*My changes*
Dear Senator,

I have some good friends who are regular and reserve component military in Iraq and Afghanistan.  
It has come to my understanding that their weapons training is sorely underfunded/inadequate before going into combat.  
In some cases they are currently being considered "qualified" for combat after firing only a 151 round (Army) qualification course. 

In general, most Regular Army soldiers will fire this qualification twice a year, while Reserve/ National Guard Army will only fire this qualification once a year. It was also brought to my knowledge that computer generated systems have been developed and emplaced in order to reduce the amount of training ammunition used by these warriors.

This is unacceptable!
It is common knowledge that an average shooter needs a minimum of 3000 rounds fired per a weapon system before the muscle memory and proper techniques become second nature.  Computer games can not replace the range time necessary to build a solid shooter, and training ammunition should never be an issue. Especially in a time of war!

Further, current battle emphasizes a lot of "urban warfare" house-to-house type environment (Iraq), along with extended ranges in mountain terrain (Afghanistan).
Thus: 
EVERY common soldier's training should (in addition) include plenty of close quarter’s marksmanship (CQM) and long range marksmanship (LRM) type training. These are skill’s that can not be built in computer based training or with a lack of ammunition and range time.

Senator, please investigate this situation and correct it.
Further loss of lives of ANY of our troops due to inadequate/underfunded training is unacceptable!

Please let me know what you find out, and what we can do to correct this serious lack of support for our troops.
Thank you Senator, Sincerely,

(me) 

dated this date of 05Dec08, 0200am, two days before Pearl Harbor day!


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 4, 2008)

*Final Draft faxed to McCain @ Senate, and Arizona Republic Newspaper at 2330 tonight.*

Dear Senator McCain,

I have some very respected friends who are actively serving in the Military in Iraq and Afghanistan.  
It has come to my understanding that their weapon training is sorely under-funded and inadequate before going into combat!  In many cases they are currently being considered "qualified" for combat after firing only a meager 151 round qualification course!
*This is unacceptable!*

It was also brought to my knowledge that computer generated systems have been developed and emplaced in order to reduce the amount of training ammunition used by these warriors.  Computer games cannot replace the range time necessary to build a solid shooter! 
Reducing the training ammunition costs should _never be more important than our soldiers _getting adequate training. Especially in a time of war!  A soldier needs a minimum of 3000+ rounds to develop the muscle memory and technique necessary for combat. 3000+ rounds at a minimum.

Further, real-world current battle strategy and tactics emphasize a lot of "urban warfare" house-to-house type combat, and thus: EVERY common soldier's training (_in addition to Long Range training_) must include plenty of CQB type training.

Close Quarter’s Marksmanship (CQM) and Long-Range Marksmanship (LRM) type training are skill’s that cannot be built in computer-based training, or with a lack of ammunition and range time.

Senator, please investigate this situation and correct it.

*Further loss of lives *of ANY of our troops due to inadequate and under-funded training is completely unacceptable!

Also, Senator, I'm curious if it may be time to "set aside" The Hague Agreement, and go to a (supplemental) hollow "expanding ammunition" projectile, similar to what the Russians now have in their inventory.

Please find out if this Hollow Projectile is what would be "preferred" by our 'trigger pullers" on the ground, to _supplement_ the AP/FMJ rounds. Please, (at least) find out if this is _what they want_.   Please talk to the real "boots on the ground" Training Sergeants and Gunnery Sergeants currently engaged in these types of situations, not the Washington types, and find out what they _REALLY want _in regards to training and ammunition.   

It may be time to put-aside old (no longer current) political agreements of 50+ years ago, and it is _MOST DEFINATELY _time to upgrade the quality and quantity of our training to reflect "real world" conditions.

Please let me know what you find out, and what we can do to correct this serious lack of support for our troops.  I have faith that you can do something about these issues.
Please also contact me further if I can be of assistance in any way in this quest.
Thank you Senator, Sincerely,

(ME)

Dated this date of 05Dec08, 0200am, just two days before the honoring of Pearl Harbor Day, and the loss of life of similar warriors on the USS Arizona.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 5, 2008)

Anyone who want's to copy (revise, whatever) this (the above) letter to send to your own Congressman/Senator/Newspaper please feel free to do so.

If our guys aren't getting the proper training just to save a buck...
Well that's freakin CRIMINAL to me.


----------



## car (Dec 5, 2008)

11B-B4 said:


> Thats actually funny because on of my brothers buddies in Samara was taking a shit when a haji open his shitter door and tried to rip him out of the wooden shitter on the edge of their green zone in broad daylight. The haji was killed but they set up SOP for people going to the shitters on the edge of thier PB's green zone by the BP's to bring an m9 with them and have it at the ready should that happen again.



Yeah, I'm a little passionate about this myself. One of my guys from the Airpane Gang, was in a plastic shitter when they got hit.

I wasn't there, but the story I've been told (and we all know parartroopers are trained liars ) is that "joe" was in the shitter when they got hit with mortars. The shitter was "perforated, 1SG!" Joe stumbled out, pants around his legs, completely unharmed!

He'll catch hell for that the rest of his life! 

Afghanistan - '02.


----------



## P. Beck (Dec 11, 2008)

M855 round to be replaced by "M855 LFS" in 2009.

http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/docs/PEO_Ammo.pdf


----------



## MontereyJack (Dec 11, 2008)

P. Beck said:


> M855 round to be replaced by "M855 LFS" in 2009.
> 
> http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/docs/PEO_Ammo.pdf


 Is this bullet weight 55 or 62 grains?


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 11, 2008)

P. Beck said:


> M855 round to be replaced by "M855 LFS" in 2009.


Awsome Post!!!!!
Thanks, PB!


----------



## P. Beck (Dec 11, 2008)

Don't know bullet weight or MV yet.  Somebody, somewhere knows, but PICA hasn't said or maybe my google-fu is just weak.
Documentation says re-designed projo with re-formulated powder for higher MV, lower flash, cleaner burn and less tooth-decay.

Know what this is? ---> []

A picture of me.  Not holding my breath.


----------



## arizonaguide (Dec 11, 2008)

Just another reminder on excellent FREE training:

Anyone who is CONUS, there is an excellent place where a Iraq/Afgh vet can get a *free 5 day Carbine class at Gunsite Academy *here in Arizona during the week of *August 10-14, 2009*. (I said FREE!). Or, *pistol class July 20-24*.
Link's here:http://gunsite.com/courses/carbine.html and you're guaranteed to fire more than 151 rounds.

Just posting another reminder.   (It's Free!)


----------



## arizonaguide (May 3, 2009)

arizonaguide said:


> Just another reminder on excellent FREE training:
> 
> Anyone who is CONUS, there is an excellent place where a Iraq/Afgh vet can get a *free 5 day Carbine class at Gunsite Academy *here in Arizona during the week of *August 10-14, 2009*. (I said FREE!). Or, *pistol class July 20-24*.
> Link's here:http://gunsite.com/courses/carbine.html and you're guaranteed to fire more than 151 rounds.
> ...


 
Did anyone get signed up for the *Free Gunsite classes* mentioned above?
Just a reminder for Iraq/Afgh Vets!:2c:

JAB, have you heard anything being improved on the 151rounds to combat issue? I sent a followup letter this morning to the McCain office. Will also follow up Monday with a phone call.


----------

