Jump to content

The Next US Assault Rifle


Recommended Posts

Is it the same though when that 5.56MM round is fired from a rifle with a 25% smaller barrel? when the round isn't heavy grain? and when the targets aren't paper? Are there other considerations in the mix?

5.56 rounds can indeed do horrific damage. But in the cases of things like Suicide bombers, that may as you point out be on drugs, damage isn't enough. It has to be fatal. I thought the whole premise of the 5.56 round was "to wound and cause the enemy to treat the and waste resources on the injured" then the joke was on us as we then went to war with Communist human wave attacks and suicidal sappers. Even now our main enemies aren't thinking "medical attention" when they get hit. They are thinking "grenade and take some with you" or "detonate" even at the time of our 5.56 adoption when the USSR was enemy number 1 they didnt place as much value on the lives of their troops.

Its not an open and shut case, different rounds have different attributes and drawbacks. And it can vary. The USMC not going M-4 in Iraq was considered a drawback. In afghanistan an M-16A4 is an advantage because battles are generally not in urban enviroments and range is a bigger factor. I think another "unspoken reason" the USMC didn't go full M-4 is it didn't want to pay for the associated gizmos that go with it. some of my closest friends both rate M-4s. I don't know a Marine that I consider a very close friend that uses an M-16A4. Everyone is billeted with the smaller rifle. (Airwing/arty)

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, as far as platform goes, the HK416 and HK417 have both been tested in the sandbox, found to be outstanding platforms and subsequently pulled out of the field by DoD. Why, I don't know. I've got a friend in the 20th SF who told me that the operators downrange have been begging for them back. HK is reworking both the 416's and 417's used by our guys in the field to civilian standards (semi-auto) and are planning to sale them on the civilian market.

HK is already making civilian semi-auto HK 416s and 417s. They released the MR556A1 in early 2011 (maybe late 2010?) and the MR762A1 earlier this year. Those are the US versions. The European versions (MR223 and MR308)were released earlier. The delay in the US versions was due to requiring some parts to be made in the US due to import regulations. The MRs are great guns, but are quite expensive, and have received some criticism due to choices that HK made for the civilian versions (like heavy non-chromed barrels, and lower pushpins that require a tool to release an internal plunger prior to moving them).

5.56 rounds can indeed do horrific damage. But in the cases of things like Suicide bombers, that may as you point out be on drugs, damage isn't enough. It has to be fatal. I thought the whole premise of the 5.56 round was "to wound and cause the enemy to treat the and waste resources on the injured" then the joke was on us as we then went to war with Communist human wave attacks and suicidal sappers. Even now our main enemies aren't thinking "medical attention" when they get hit. They are thinking "grenade and take some with you" or "detonate" even at the time of our 5.56 adoption when the USSR was enemy number 1 they didnt place as much value on the lives of their troops.

I find it interesting that Russia took their 7.62mm AK round and downsized it to 5.45mm in the AK-74, probably based on the West going to 5.56mm. So, they jumped on the smaller, higher velocity round bandwagon too. Another thing to remember is that a lot of the specific bullets used by the military are designed to defeat body armor and are good for that, but those rounds behave differently on soft targets. Also, remember the military is barred from using "inhumane" hollow point rounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with the premise that there are many variables when it comes to performance of a given caliber. That's why I said it was outstanding IF it was used in the proper way. Short barrels won't give you the terminal performance of a 20" barrel at longer ranges nor were they designed to. Short barrels are made for tight spaces (think urban environments) not shooting from hilltop to hilltop in mountain country. Lighter weight rounds give you tremendous velocity but lack in knock down power if the shot placement is off. That's why the military has shifted to the heavier weight rounds, better knock down and penetration power at the expense of being slightly slower.

That argument can go on an on. What I'm saying is the 5.56 round doesn't lack in killing power IF it is employed right. That's why every SOF unit in the world trains to place multiple controlled shots on target. Unfortunately, not all line units train to that standard. When you shoot someone in the leg, for example, that is not going to be an instant fight stopping hit unless you are shooting him with a .50 cal. 7.62 or a 5.56, doesn't matter. Now you shoot him in the head, he's DRT, not DOA. Bottom line, you can't say a particular caliber is crap because it doesn't kill with any hit. Like it or not, shot placement, not round caliber, rules the day. Just ask OBL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HK is already making civilian semi-auto HK 416s and 417s. They released the MR556A1 in early 2011 (maybe late 2010?) and the MR762A1 earlier this year. Those are the US versions. The European versions (MR223 and MR308)were released earlier. The delay in the US versions was due to requiring some parts to be made in the US due to import regulations. The MRs are great guns, but are quite expensive, and have received some criticism due to choices that HK made for the civilian versions (like heavy non-chromed barrels, and lower pushpins that require a tool to release an internal plunger prior to moving them).

I find it interesting that Russia took their 7.62mm AK round and downsized it to 5.45mm in the AK-74, probably based on the West going to 5.56mm. So, they jumped on the smaller, higher velocity round bandwagon too. Another thing to remember is that a lot of the specific bullets used by the military are designed to defeat body armor and are good for that, but those rounds behave differently on soft targets. Also, remember the military is barred from using "inhumane" hollow point rounds.

Mikael Kalishinkov said it ruined the AK, and I had heard the Russians were going back to the bigger round.

Anyone else see the irony of a Soviet individual in a highly controlled, totalitarian country, inventing this break through world changing invention, while Americans pride themselves on our freedom of individuals, ideas, and inventiveness/ingenuity and we can't get past a massive government bureaucracy to get the proper tools to those that need them?

Is this odd to anyone else?

we could easily write one of the chain email stories, where a humble American inventor create a weapon with next to no money that our troops have used in various guises for decades and it developed a reputation for rugged simplicity and reliability.

Meanwhile, in the evil USSR A massive Beuracracy forced all its units to use a plasticy rifle that jammed on sweat in a jungle, and couldn't handle any kind of fouling, or grime. To save money, critical parts like a chromed chamber were omitted. It was responsible for many deaths of its soldiers over the years, with decades to fix it and many bureaucratic hearings the plastic black rifle remains in service. even now better alternatives exist but the bureaucratic apparatus refuses to allow such changes.

then the Punch line: The first inventor was Kalishnikov, the weapon the AK, the country Soviet union. the rifle that developed a horrible reputation that exists to this day is the M-16 and the evil beauracracy is the US government.

"I am still ready to shake hands with anyone who designs a better assault rifle than mine." - Mikael Kalishinikov

hope this guy lives another 50 years so we can get a handshake someday

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

HK is already making civilian semi-auto HK 416s and 417s. They released the MR556A1 in early 2011 (maybe late 2010?) and the MR762A1 earlier this year. Those are the US versions. The European versions (MR223 and MR308)were released earlier. The delay in the US versions was due to requiring some parts to be made in the US due to import regulations. The MRs are great guns, but are quite expensive, and have received some criticism due to choices that HK made for the civilian versions (like heavy non-chromed barrels, and lower pushpins that require a tool to release an internal plunger prior to moving them).

They have been making them. HK is just trying to recoup some of their losses by converting those guns for the US market.

On the barrel point, I won't own a chrome-lined AR barrel. Not as accurate as the standard barrels because of the unevenness of the chrome lining. It makes the bullets wobble ever so slightly. Military units like the chrome lining because it makes the barrels easier to clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that is being tried is the use of the 6.8 Spc round. Basically, is a .270 bullet in a necked out 5.56 casing. Much better terminal ballistics than the 5.56 at any range. It's been tested downrange as well. Really good feedback from our guys.

Cost is the only real problem with that round. On the civy market, 1000(edt) virgin brass casings will run you around $500. Guess you pay for what you get.

Edited by dbsmith88
Link to post
Share on other sites

we could easily write one of the chain email stories, where a humble American inventor create a weapon with next to no money that our troops have used in various guises for decades and it developed a reputation for rugged simplicity and reliability.

The funny thing is that Stoner originally designed the AR around the 7.62 round. DoD had him change it to fire the 5.56.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever weight reduction they got by going to the shorter barrel got undone by adding quad rails, vertical fore grips, optics, lasers, etc. Or maybe, that is part of the reason? If you are going to be putting all that stuff on there anyway, it's better to start from a light base. Or maybe they figured in the future type of fighting that the US was likely to be doing there would be more urban and short range stuff than long range duels and the shorter barrel would be better for the former.

Also remember that the AK normally has a 16" barrel, so the 14.5" M4 barrel isn't at much of a disadvantage.

Although important, weight isn't as much an issue as it used to be. Our doctrine and current TTP's have us fighting from some type of platform which means getting in and out of 1151's, strykers, MRAPS etc where a shorter barrel and collapsible buttstock are much needed. As far as all the ninja stuff and gangsta grips going on weapon systems its often whatever is needed and personal choice. Downrange Joe is pretty much free to put on what he wants or feels he needs, which is a huge change of thought from what most veterans remember. However, the need to reach out and touch someone will always be needed which is why you'll usually find a few M110's in each combat/combat support branched PLT to complement the scoped 249's each gunner carries. If you still need more range beyond the usual 600-800meters then you're typically in a fight where you can get and wait on CAS.

Although the knock off AK is the weapon most associate with our operations over there, the reality is you'll find Mr. freedom fighter using whatever. A typical weapons cache will consists of knock off soviet weapons, semi auto pistols, and about 25% of stuff that'll make you shake your head. Finding 100 year old bolt action rifles out there isn't uncommon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lived through the US Army switch from the M14 & M14E2 to the M16/M16A1. I carried an M14 for three years. It was heavy and long. In the woods on Ft. Campbell, KY, the rifle was constantly getting caught up in the "wait-a-minute vines" and "gotcha bushes." We normally carried three ammo pouches which gave us 120 rounds at the ready. The M14E2 was an automatic rifle version of the M14 (replacement for the BAR concept) with one in each fire team. With bipod, heavier stock, fold-down fore grip and pistol grip added it weighed almost as much as an empty M60 LMG! The other M14s in the fire team had semi-auto capability only. As a good point, the M14 was simple to tear down and a lot easier to clean than the M16. We did have problems with torn and split cartridges when the rifle became hot from continual firing resulting is in cartridges failing to eject.

With the change to the M16-family came the 5.56mm round and a shorter, lighter rifle. It was easier to handle in dense terrain and on long patrols due to shorter length and lighter weight. With the original 20-round magazines we could now carry 50% more rounds in the same M-14 ammo pouches (three would fit in the pouch). When the 30-round mags came out we could now carry 270 rounds in three pouches, although it requiring switching to taller pouches to hold the longer mags. The M4 has benefited tank crews by replacing the .45 cal M3 "grease gun." I have used the M16, M16A1 and M16A2. Having been in medical units over the last ten years (I have served in about every type of Army unit, with exception of SOF) I have no experience with the M4.

One of the reasons the US military switched from the M1911A1 .45 cal pistol to the current M9 9mm was that women had a hard time holding and firing the "45" (I have observed this when assigned to Vth Corps HQ in Germany) and were issued a S&W revolver in MP units. I have even watched women, senior Army nurses, have trouble completing the 40-round qual course with the M9. Not being able to hold up the weapon that long. As long as the US military has a large component of females, now being allowed into combat arms, the rifle will have to be kept light or we will have to issue two separate long arms.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in LE for over 15 yrs now and have been an armorer for the last 6 or so and I can tell you, don't believe all the hype about the 5.56 being an inferior round. Any time a 22 caliber projectile traveling somewhere around 3200 fps hits human flesh, it does really nasty things to said person. Granted it does a LOT better when it hits bone as opposed to soft tissue. Also, keep in mind that a lot of our enemies, i.e.- terrorists/insurgents, are often high on narcotics, such as khat in Somalia, when they engage our troops. Those drugs have a tendency to turn them in to superhumans in that they don't feel the pain from a hit and just keep right on coming. This is the reason I was always trained to fire 3 rounds into a target, 2 to the chest and 1 to the head, if I ever had to shoot in the line of duty. We carried 9mm which had/has the same reputation as the 5.56, "It's too small/light weight to do the job." Don't believe that crap either. Some of the high end 147 grain 9mm rounds on the market now are almost at 45 ACP performance levels.

I'm gonna throw the BS flag on the 5.56 being a less than stellar performer. I've seen way too many wounds from that round to think other wise. Also, a lot of long range rifle competitors are going to a heavy 90-105 grain 5.56 loads for 1000yd shoots because of the better ballistic performance at those ranges than the 7.62. It's an outstanding round IF it's employed in the proper way.

BTW, as far as platform goes, the HK416 and HK417 have both been tested in the sandbox, found to be outstanding platforms and subsequently pulled out of the field by DoD. Why, I don't know. I've got a friend in the 20th SF who told me that the operators downrange have been begging for them back. HK is reworking both the 416's and 417's used by our guys in the field to civilian standards (semi-auto) and are planning to sale them on the civilian market.

IMHO, you'll see the AR platform well into the future. It may go piston driven as opposed to gas operated but I don't see it going away. It's way too proven a rifle. Granted, it has matured about as much as it can with the 5.56 round.

Regards

B

No offense, but the feedback on the 5.56 round you're hearing is from soldiers and brass who have been at war and deployed for the better part of ten years to include the issues found in the round during Desert Storm and Somalia. The round we were using didn't fragment correctly effectively going right through mr. freedom fighter and enabling him to stay engaged in the fight. A couple of years ago we switched the type of 5.56 we were using to the new EP rounds and although they are more consistent the issue of how they fragment on a soft target remains. Our TTP’s and SOP’s are based on the issues found within the unreliable and inconsistent rounds we were using. I’ve heard it all over the years how effective the 5.56 round is, but its usually from folks (military included) who’ve never had to use it in an engagement.

The HK416 wasn't pulled out of the field, I used the upper eight months ago. I can't speak for the 20th as they're not an active unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USMC not going M-4 in Iraq was considered a drawback. In afghanistan an M-16A4 is an advantage because battles are generally not in urban enviroments and range is a bigger factor. I think another "unspoken reason" the USMC didn't go full M-4 is it didn't want to pay for the associated gizmos that go with it. some of my closest friends both rate M-4s. I don't know a Marine that I consider a very close friend that uses an M-16A4. Everyone is billeted with the smaller rifle. (Airwing/arty)

I've only worked with their infanty and they used a mixed of both the M4 and M16A4. I heard the same argument about the total costs of switching to the M4 and think it has some truth to the matter. Back in 07/08 both the Marines and Army would engage differently. One wasn't better than the other, it was just different based on the platform and weapon system being used and writing your doctrine to back it. Where as the Marines would engage targets at 500-600m with an ACOG with success, we used crew served weapons along with the scoped 249's. Just different ways to skin a cat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the same though when that 5.56MM round is fired from a rifle with a 25% smaller barrel? when the round isn't heavy grain? and when the targets aren't paper? Are there other considerations in the mix?

5.56 rounds can indeed do horrific damage. But in the cases of things like Suicide bombers, that may as you point out be on drugs, damage isn't enough. It has to be fatal. I thought the whole premise of the 5.56 round was "to wound and cause the enemy to treat the and waste resources on the injured" then the joke was on us as we then went to war with Communist human wave attacks and suicidal sappers. Even now our main enemies aren't thinking "medical attention" when they get hit. They are thinking "grenade and take some with you" or "detonate" even at the time of our 5.56 adoption when the USSR was enemy number 1 they didnt place as much value on the lives of their troops.

Its not an open and shut case, different rounds have different attributes and drawbacks. And it can vary. The USMC not going M-4 in Iraq was considered a drawback. In afghanistan an M-16A4 is an advantage because battles are generally not in urban enviroments and range is a bigger factor. I think another "unspoken reason" the USMC didn't go full M-4 is it didn't want to pay for the associated gizmos that go with it. some of my closest friends both rate M-4s. I don't know a Marine that I consider a very close friend that uses an M-16A4. Everyone is billeted with the smaller rifle. (Airwing/arty)

I thought the major premise behind the switch to the 5.56 round was to dramatically increase the number of rounds the individual solider could carry into combat? In previous conflicts, US soldiers often were tied close to their half tracks or 2-1/2 ton trucks and had a ready supply of ammo close at hand. During long distance patrols in the jungles of Vietnam, resupply during a sustained firefight was a bit more problematic. It didn't take long to fire off your basic load of ammo for your M-14.

As far as the damage a 5.56 round can do vrs a larger one, wound ballistics is an incredibly complex (and gruesome) subject. Even if the 5.56 has some limitations, some of those limitations were due the later US rounds (fielded around the same time the M16A2 came out) being optimized to penetrate body armor. This was back in the cold war days when Ivan started to be issued with titanium chest protectors and composite helmets. That may restrict the damage the round can do when the bad guy is protected by nothing more than a man dress but who's to say that the next conflict will be the same as the last two? Just about every modern army these days has issued body armor to their troops and I've even read some reports of Taliban utilizing this stuff.

For anyone interested in this subject, this is must read book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762

A complete history of the AK-47, it also gets into wound ballistics and the US M-16 fiasco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only worked with their infanty and they used a mixed of both the M4 and M16A4. I heard the same argument about the total costs of switching to the M4 and think it has some truth to the matter. Back in 07/08 both the Marines and Army would engage differently. One wasn't better than the other, it was just different based on the platform and weapon system being used and writing your doctrine to back it. Where as the Marines would engage targets at 500-600m with an ACOG with success, we used crew served weapons along with the scoped 249's. Just different ways to skin a cat.

Agreed.

You could also call the USMC out on the "Every Marine a rifleman" but we don't really like spending money on Rifles contradiction. I had a soldier ask me why the squad leader was the only Marine who's weapon had a PEQ-2 to actually see where he was shooting while the rest of us had iron sights. Fine question, troop. I couldn't tell ya. Had another friend who was a reservist and they invaded iraq in 2003 with 20 round vietnam era mags. no I;m not kidding.

most of that may have been rectified, in fact swung to the opposite extreme. My Buddies Reserve unit (different friend, different unit BTW) had to Qualify Using M-16A2s. So they got to "spend the whole Morning teaching the kids from boot camp how to use Iron Sights and BZO" since the M-16A4 is standard issue even in recruit training. So things may have gotten better. The purist in me says they should at least uses iron sights in boot camp, back to basics and all. The common sense in me says they should get as much experience with what they will actually use in combat and thats more likely to be an M-16A4. So I think I am happy with them using M-16A4s in boot camp. (Coming from someone who didn't have to spend hours shining boots in boot camp)

The USMC programs book this year is the automatic rifleman going back to the tradition full auto assault rifle (believe its IAR?), rather than the SAW as well.

11Bee you seem to be right. the "built to wound" seems to be one of those myths that just wont die

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious on what the ARC "experts" thoughts are on what will be the replacement for the M16/M4 series of rifles. This issue has been brewing pretty much since Vietnam and seems to be continuing based on experience in Iraq and Vietnam. The special ops folks have the ability to use other weapons but the grunts are still taking into battle a weapon that is over 50 years old at this point.

After reading the ongoing thread about how difficult it seems for the Army to figure out what is the optimum camouflage uniform, I can't imagine how ugly it will be when they finally decide to select a replacement assault rifle. I have a feeling that it will be the ultimate example of procurement and politics gone amuck.

My curiosity is also peaked after reading the after action review of the Battle of Wanat that occurred in 2008. A reinforced platoon sized element of US Army paratroopers was engaged by a much superior force of Taliban and came close to being overrun. The AAR has multiple reference to jammed weapons, both the M4 and others (SAW, Mk 19 grenade launcher, etc). To quote one section of the report:

Without any machine guns of their own, the mortarmen had to use M4 assault rifles firing at the maximum rate of fire simply to suppress the enemy in order to survive. In this way, Phillips burned out a series of three M4s.

A single soldier p*ssing through three weapons during a 3 hour battle does not sound particularly encouraging.

Out of 49 paratroopers involved that night, 9 were killed and many more wounded. The AAR is a must read for anyone interested in one of the most intense small unit actions since Vietnam.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Wanat.pdf

Never having been in combat, I don't have the right to make comments either way on the performance of the M4/M16 during actual wartime conditions but I can state that even during peacetime exercises back in my day, I encountered more than a few jams with my M-16A1 / A2 during exercises (and yes, I kept my weapon clean). All of them were cleared quickly but it definitely made me wonder how reliable this weapon would be in a sustain engagement, especially after reading about how the AK-47 / 74 series was basically unstoppable under even the worst conditions.

Since Wanat, it appear that the Army has tried to upgrade the M4 with new magazines, heavier barrels, etc but much of the feedback that I see online seems to indicate that there are still serious reliability issues with this weapon.

Any thoughts on what would a satisfactory replacement for the M4 (or does the M4 even need to be replaced)?

this might get alittle lengthy, but I'm alittle too familure with the AR platform and part of it's early evolution.

* time to ditch the 5.56! The 6.8SPC round is far better for the intended purpose, but I'd go with either a 6.5mm or a 7mm built off a shortened .300 Savage case with an overall length of about 1.8" and a shoulder deminsion of 1.44 with a .28" neck length. This case will give you much more usable range and the ability to use bullets in the 130 grain class. In otherwords a good and solid 400 yard one shot kill chamber. Or double the knock down power.

* Time to look seriously at the delayed rolling block actions.

* If you have to have a carry handel, then make it removable with a rail mount underneath it

* Use a better muzzel brake/flash hider

* new and better magazines that are dead quiet. (single stack prefered)

* a two stage set trigger that can be fired either way

* 20" barrel with night sites installed

* Keep over loaded weight under 7.5lb.

* make every lever and anything attached dead silent

* Forend must be flat bottemed to aid in shooting off somekind of rest

* Must be cleanable in four minutes or less with a forward assist installed.

Now most folks fail to realize that 90% of all kills are done in the 100 yard or less catagory, and 85% are well under 75 yards. Make the rifle easy to point at close range with a good sighting system for close range shooting. Don't even consider the "bull pup" designs. Keep the three shot burst with a full auto option.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we always hear of the Russian based AK-rifle as "never jamming" and "being foolproof", but I gotta question how true that is. You probably don't hear from all the dead guys it jammed on... :wasntme:

they do fail just like any other weapon. The real problem with the AK47 is that it's a 75 yard weapon in the real world

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the US should rush out and purchase AK-47's but from all the reports I have read, it is much superior with regards to reliability and not needing meticulous maintenance in order to perform. Accuracy is a different story but since the standard issue US rifle is the cut-down M4, long range accuracy doesn't seem to be a priority any more.

My guess is that if the US Army finally comes up with a replacement for it's current rifle, it will have every gadget under the sun, including wi-fi, will weigh close to 50 lbs and will probably cost around $30K each. I just can't believe that after more than half a century, there is nothing better than the M4 out there.

Of course it could be worse, we could be stuck with a pig like the Brit's SA-80. Gotta look on the bright side I guess.

OK, I've been close enough to the otherguy to tell you what he had for dinner, and don't think the AK is without flaws as it has it's own. The one that sticks in my mind first is that they are very noisey. You can hear the saftey let off two hundred yards out. Their magazines sound like a trash can when they hit the ground (noise at two in the morning is a major cause of fatalities). Given the choice of weapons, I'll take the M16 over the AK47 seven days a week, but not in love with the 5.56. Even the 6mmx45 is far superior to the 7.62x39 or the 5.56.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikael Kalishinkov said it ruined the AK, and I had heard the Russians were going back to the bigger round.

Anyone else see the irony of a Soviet individual in a highly controlled, totalitarian country, inventing this break through world changing invention, while Americans pride themselves on our freedom of individuals, ideas, and inventiveness/ingenuity and we can't get past a massive government bureaucracy to get the proper tools to those that need them?

Is this odd to anyone else?

we could easily write one of the chain email stories, where a humble American inventor create a weapon with next to no money that our troops have used in various guises for decades and it developed a reputation for rugged simplicity and reliability.

Meanwhile, in the evil USSR A massive Beuracracy forced all its units to use a plasticy rifle that jammed on sweat in a jungle, and couldn't handle any kind of fouling, or grime. To save money, critical parts like a chromed chamber were omitted. It was responsible for many deaths of its soldiers over the years, with decades to fix it and many bureaucratic hearings the plastic black rifle remains in service. even now better alternatives exist but the bureaucratic apparatus refuses to allow such changes.

then the Punch line: The first inventor was Kalishnikov, the weapon the AK, the country Soviet union. the rifle that developed a horrible reputation that exists to this day is the M-16 and the evil beauracracy is the US government.

"I am still ready to shake hands with anyone who designs a better assault rifle than mine." - Mikael Kalishinikov

hope this guy lives another 50 years so we can get a handshake someday

I'm not sure I agree that Kalishinikov was the first to make a world changing invention. As I recall, the Germans developed the concept of the intermediate round as the 7.92 Kurz and fielded the MP43/44/StG 44 as what many consider to be the first "assault rifle" before the AK-47 was invented. I'm not saying that Kalishinikov copied the Germans as he may have come up with it independently, but he wasn't the first. However, the AK is much more well known than the StG 44, probably because the allies won the war, which put an end any development of the German gun.

They have been making them. HK is just trying to recoup some of their losses by converting those guns for the US market.

On the barrel point, I won't own a chrome-lined AR barrel. Not as accurate as the standard barrels because of the unevenness of the chrome lining. It makes the bullets wobble ever so slightly. Military units like the chrome lining because it makes the barrels easier to clean.

HK isn't "converting" 416s and 417s for the civilian market. Due to US import restrictions, as well as German export restrictions, HK had to invest significant money in tooling in their Columbus facility to make enough US parts, like the lower receivers, for it to not be considered a foreign made gun. It's not as cheap or simple as what they were able to do with the roller lock HK9x series where they were all made in Germany and simply imported here. Even the MR barrels can't be sent from Germany. They send the barrel blanks and the barrels have to be made here in the US. HK spent a lot of money setting up US production, and that's part of why the prices are so high. But, they didn't do it just to sell some high priced high quality guns to HK fanboys. Their real goal is to set up production here for US military, government, and LE sales, because that's where HK sees the money is, not in the civilian market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Dave mentioned, no full auto rifle/carbine can withstand repeated full auto mag dumps close together.

The M-4 system has had problems with range in Afghanastan due to the shorter barrel. Trick is we started using it because of the urban combat we encountered in Iraq where full sized M-16A2's proved combursome in house to house fighting

Don, it's not just the barrel length, but the round in use itself. A 20" barrel with something like the cartridge that came to mind would be an honest 500 yard rifle while still being great for the sub 100 yard conflicts that are true combat. A typical ambush lasts about 45 seconds max, and if you havn't got the job done by then your probably gonna end up in a bag. But an ongoing running fire fight is another story, and this is where the 300 yard range comes to light. You seldome become engaged in a quagmire like this because they usually end up in an ambush a quarter mile up the road. Afghanistan was better suited for the plain jane M14 rifle a lot of the time, but would have been an bear to hump at that altitude.

Urban warefare is best suited for shotguns and grenades. Done right it's a bear, and done wrong it's often fatal. That's why somebody invented the WP grenade

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the German G3 during my stint in the armed forces (4 years Norwegian Army)

Love that rifle, a bit heavy but the round has some serious stopping power. Tried the M16A2, SA80, various AKs...and I wouldn't take any of them over the G3.

That being said, it wouldn't take many mags on full auto before the barrel turned blue, and a trip to the depot to explain why the rifle is f'd always followed. Not fun.

All air cooled weapons with any rate of fire will encounter this problem. The .50 M2 (12-7 as we called it) and my darling the MG3 (Natoized MG42) all suffered from this.

The MG3 with its 1200RPM had to be watched closely, and barrel changes were frequent...

So I wouldn't go around demanding a new rifle because a desperate guy fighting for his life burned out a couple of rifles...

Just my 2 cents.

G3's are fantastic, but also very heavy. It's one of the few modern rifles I'd use a bayonet with.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the same though when that 5.56MM round is fired from a rifle with a 25% smaller barrel? when the round isn't heavy grain? and when the targets aren't paper? Are there other considerations in the mix?

5.56 rounds can indeed do horrific damage. But in the cases of things like Suicide bombers, that may as you point out be on drugs, damage isn't enough. It has to be fatal. I thought the whole premise of the 5.56 round was "to wound and cause the enemy to treat the and waste resources on the injured" then the joke was on us as we then went to war with Communist human wave attacks and suicidal sappers. Even now our main enemies aren't thinking "medical attention" when they get hit. They are thinking "grenade and take some with you" or "detonate" even at the time of our 5.56 adoption when the USSR was enemy number 1 they didnt place as much value on the lives of their troops.

Its not an open and shut case, different rounds have different attributes and drawbacks. And it can vary. The USMC not going M-4 in Iraq was considered a drawback. In afghanistan an M-16A4 is an advantage because battles are generally not in urban enviroments and range is a bigger factor. I think another "unspoken reason" the USMC didn't go full M-4 is it didn't want to pay for the associated gizmos that go with it. some of my closest friends both rate M-4s. I don't know a Marine that I consider a very close friend that uses an M-16A4. Everyone is billeted with the smaller rifle. (Airwing/arty)

I just looked the data up for a 60 grain bullet out of a 14" barrel in .223 (5.56). Data showed 2900fps at the muzzel. A 20" barrel out to give you a solid 3200fps (not a max load), and be a solid 400 yard weapon. But knockdown power is about 520ft.lb. with a 62 grain bullet and a .30B/C. Nothing to write home about for sure. But a 6x45 (.223 necked up to 6mm)in a 20" barrel should show 700+ ft.pd. of energy at 400 yards. A huge difference, plus the case is the same as the 5.56 except for the caliber. This round was studied extensively by the military back in the 1970's and they almost went to it.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with the premise that there are many variables when it comes to performance of a given caliber. That's why I said it was outstanding IF it was used in the proper way. Short barrels won't give you the terminal performance of a 20" barrel at longer ranges nor were they designed to. Short barrels are made for tight spaces (think urban environments) not shooting from hilltop to hilltop in mountain country. Lighter weight rounds give you tremendous velocity but lack in knock down power if the shot placement is off. That's why the military has shifted to the heavier weight rounds, better knock down and penetration power at the expense of being slightly slower.

That argument can go on an on. What I'm saying is the 5.56 round doesn't lack in killing power IF it is employed right. That's why every SOF unit in the world trains to place multiple controlled shots on target. Unfortunately, not all line units train to that standard. When you shoot someone in the leg, for example, that is not going to be an instant fight stopping hit unless you are shooting him with a .50 cal. 7.62 or a 5.56, doesn't matter. Now you shoot him in the head, he's DRT, not DOA. Bottom line, you can't say a particular caliber is crap because it doesn't kill with any hit. Like it or not, shot placement, not round caliber, rules the day. Just ask OBL.

I was taught three rounds aimed at the adams apple. If the target moves toward you it becomes a head shot and if he's moving away it becomes a chest shot.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree that Kalishinikov was the first to make a world changing invention. As I recall, the Germans developed the concept of the intermediate round as the 7.92 Kurz and fielded the MP43/44/StG 44 as what many consider to be the first "assault rifle" before the AK-47 was invented. I'm not saying that Kalishinikov copied the Germans as he may have come up with it independently, but he wasn't the first. However, the AK is much more well known than the StG 44, probably because the allies won the war, which put an end any development of the German gun.

Could you agree that he may not have invented it, but he pretty much perfected it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D, The 5.56 mm Steyer rifle was just starting to come into ADF service when I got out. Talking to fellows that have used both the SLR (7.62 mm OZ made FN variant) and the Steyer (plastic fantastic) they all to a man preferred the SLR because of its greater range. They, like me could see no point in letting the enemy get to within 30m which from what I've read is pretty much the effective range of the 5.56mm weapons used by both sides in Afghanistan. The diggers in Vietnam didn't complain about the weight of the SLR, it did the job and also did the job during numeroues peace keeping operations it was involved in.

I never saw any reason to complain about its weight. Could it be made into a full auto weapon. Yes, and it was a very simple process, a match stick did the trick, but if you got caught doing it it was a chargeable offence. That's why Lithgow Small Arms developed the improved version of the L1A1 (standard SLR) This was called the L2A1 and had a heavier barrel and was fully automatic. It was still a gas operated rifle and with a larger mag was used quite effectively in Vietnam. To me, although I don't know all the variables, it just makes more sense to try and keep your enemy outside the effective range of his weapon, not let him get within that range and then worry about what he's doing to you and your mates. I don't remember how many grains the 7.62 SLR round had in it but it could give a hefty kick to the shoulder if used incorrectly. Just my 2c worth.

:cheers:,

Ross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...