5.56 vs. 6.8/6.5 continues

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
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! :p
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,052
Location
Not Afghanistan
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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
to quote from 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. 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

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,998
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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
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.:mad:
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
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:
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
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

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
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

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,998
Couple of points I want to address...

Capable of accuracy better then any other rifle in use by any other military.

Is that a verifiable fact? How was this conclusion reached?

• Sub MOA out to 800 meters with match grade barrel and ammo.


• 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)

Is any of that issue? if not its worthless.

• Penetration issues (We have mortars, artillery and CAS! Train them and the allow them to use it)

Thats a cop out IMO.

NATO is who we fight with, we are not loners and we do not need to be.

Hmm, the USA didn't think so when they adopted the 7.62x51mm or the 5.56x45mm



Why not build on our training programs and maximize our ability of technology and equipment by matching with proper advanced training?

Sounds like a great idea to me.


Training:

Why are we cutting the range to 300 meters when the rifle and ammo is capable of 800?

Because the vast majority of combat is fought under 300m. Doesn't mean we should train to further out but that' the reason.

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?

That is fucking near criminal negligence on the part of the commander's IMO.

How do you fix it? Well stop complaining about better bullets and better rifles,

Why would you not want the best possible piece of kit when going to war? :uhh:




Just my :2c:
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
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

Unverified
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
29
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

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
233
Location
Fayettenam
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

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
Is that a verifiable fact? How was this conclusion reached?

It’s been proven through international competition…

Is any of that issue? if not its worthless.

Of course they are issue’s that is why they have been addressed…

Thats a cop out IMO.


That is reality! The enemy has cover I can’t shoot through, I use an M203. If it doesn’t work I use an AT4. If that doesn’t work I use whatever is at my disposal to complete my mission (ie. A Bradley, a tank, Mortars, Artillery, CAS) What ever my commander give’s me to complete my mission. Shooting is a small piece of the pie, but still one of the most important ones…

Hmm, the USA didn't think so when they adopted the 7.62x51mm or the 5.56x45mm

There was not a standard caliber prior to 5.56/ 7.62/ 9mm… Its different game now, b/c there is a standard…

Because the vast majority of combat is fought under 300m. Doesn't mean we should train to further out but that' the reason.

Why? b/c the enemy’s weapons are in most cases not capable of longer reach, and of course we do not train our force to engage our enemy from further distance. Modern urban combat happens at ranges of 200 meters and closer. However the combat seen in Afghanistan is much different and the enemy has learned that our riflemen capability stops at 300 meters. They have taken advantage of this!

If it all happens at 300m and in, why are we now training SDM’s to shoot at 500m +? Why have an SDM? Why not have squads of proficient shooters who are as capable as their rifle?



That is fucking near criminal negligence on the part of the commander's IMO.

I could not agree more, but again that is reality!

Why would you not want the best possible piece of kit when going to war?

That’s like having a 30 million dollar plane, but not having any plots trained well enough to fly it…

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!

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.

There is no such thing as one shot kills, that is hollywood! Rifles go in the hands of riflemen, who are in rifle squads. 1 riflemen shoots, all riflemen shoot.

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.

1/12 twist was used in the M16A1 with M193 ammo (55gr ball) the bullet would tumble b/c the light weight of the bullet and slow twist. M855 ammo (62gr steal core penetrator) was designed to give further distance and penetration. The 1/7 twist was designed to be capable of stabilizing the M855 and M856(tracer) b/c the 1/12 twist would not. The US military opted further reach and penetration over short range and tumbling rounds.

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.

Russia is not playing by the same silly rule book as us, the Geneva convention. If we throw out the rule book, we will use hollow points and explosive tipped rounds! Changing the game completely and making again no reason to change from 5.56…


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

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,509
Location
Where it is wet, wet, and more wet
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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
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:

:D
 

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,998
Is that a verifiable fact? How was this conclusion reached?

It’s been proven through international competition…

Interesting, I'd like to see the results...

Is any of that issue? if not its worthless.

Of course they are issue’s that is why they have been addressed…

:doh: Is that fancy equipment ISSEUED to troops? No it isn't so it's worthless. My poijnt was/is you can modify anything to make it great but if the model isseued to troops fails, then it's not good.


Thats a cop out IMO.


That is reality! The enemy has cover I can’t shoot through, I use an M203. If it doesn’t work I use an AT4. If that doesn’t work I use whatever is at my disposal to complete my mission (ie. A Bradley, a tank, Mortars, Artillery, CAS) What ever my commander give’s me to complete my mission. Shooting is a small piece of the pie, but still one of the most important ones…

If there is a better way of doing something/better peice of kit for doiing something that everyone has, give it to them, dont rely onb back up that may come too late to save troops lives, like I said, I think its a cop out.

Hmm, the USA didn't think so when they adopted the 7.62x51mm or the 5.56x45mm

There was not a standard caliber prior to 5.56/ 7.62/ 9mm… Its different game now, b/c there is a standard…

There was no standard caliber prior to the 7.62, the US adopted it without getting NATO's approval, and there was a standard caliber prior to the 5.56, that would be the 7.62 the USA forced on NATO only to force them to change once again. History.


Because the vast majority of combat is fought under 300m. Doesn't mean we should train to further out but that' the reason.

Why? b/c the enemy’s weapons are in most cases not capable of longer reach, and of course we do not train our force to engage our enemy from further distance. Modern urban combat happens at ranges of 200 meters and closer. However the combat seen in Afghanistan is much different and the enemy has learned that our riflemen capability stops at 300 meters. They have taken advantage of this!

If it all happens at 300m and in, why are we now training SDM’s to shoot at 500m +? Why have an SDM? Why not have squads of proficient shooters who are as capable as their rifle?


You as a firearms instructor should know exactly why 300m is the standard, I'm surprised you don't know.
It was worked out during WWI (by the Germans IIRC), that the vast majority of comabt was fought at under 300m, this was at a time when all Armies were carrying weapons capable of accurate fire 2 - 3 times further than that.
I hope that clears that up for you, you should know that mofo
:p

That is fucking near criminal negligence on the part of the commander's IMO.

I could not agree more, but again that is reality!

Why would you not want the best possible piece of kit when going to war?

That’s like having a 30 million dollar plane, but not having any plots trained well enough to fly it…

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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
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

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
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! :p
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
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!
:p

..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.
 
Top