Workhorse rifle 'failing US troops in Afghanistan'.

[Ponce]

Many US troops are now also using the AK-47.
================================================== ==


Workhorse rifle 'failing US troops in Afghanistan'

By Julius Cavendish In Kabu


The US military thinks it may have got one of the basics wrong: its guns are not good enough. A US Army study found that the M-4 rifle, the workhorse weapon of America's troops, is ineffective at ranges of more then 300m because bullets lose the velocity necessary to kill an enemy.


Although the dense vegetation and warrens of mud-packed houses in parts of southern Afghanistan lend themselves to close-range fighting, there are also many battles where Taliban fighters make use of the heavier calibre of their AK-47s to ambush Nato and Afghan soldiers from afar.

Related articles
Hague leads Tory delegation for talks in Kabul
Beckham visits troops in Helmand
Search the news archive for more stories
The AK-47's 7.62 mm round is effective at more than 400m. And the AK-47 is extremely durable, as are most of the other marks of Kalashnikov weapons. "You can dip it in the river, drop it in sand but it still works," an Afghan security contractor said.

In comparison, the M-4 fires a lighter 5.56mm round. "The 5.56mm calibre is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," Colonel Douglas Tamilio, a programme manager at the US Army's centre for small arms development, told the Associated Press. "But at 500m to 600m the round doesn't have stopping power."

Nato sources said the alliance's soldiers use the M-4 "because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations". The M-4 worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was close-quarter battles in cities such as Ramadi and Fallujah. But in Afghanistan, some Taliban fighters will open fire at ranges of close to a kilometre. Taliban snipers held up US Marines and their Afghan comrades during Nato's operation to clear the farmlands of Marjah, in central Helmand, this year.

Among the solutions the US Army is proposing, is that nine soldiers in each infantry company carry the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a 7.62 mm and is accurate to more than 800m. Infantry companies already include sharpshooters with M-14s, and weapons teams carrying grenade-launchers and light machine-guns.

Another idea is to design a rifle with a heavier calibre than the M-4, trading in some of its high rate of fire for greater range. But some experts argue that the 5.56mm round is maligned by the US Army report. Instead, they say that the M-4's failings are the result of its shorterbarrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to wield as they scramble in and out of vehicles. The M-4 is a compacted version of the M-16 rifle, a more cumbersome weapon. "Unfortunately, weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, said. The British Army uses the 5.56mm SA-80, backed by the 7.62mm "gimpy", the general purpose machine-gun with a high rate of lethal fire.

But in the labyrinth of vineyards and orchards in Kandahar province, where much of this summer's fighting is expected, range is unlikely to be an issue. The dense vegetation lets insurgents get within 200m before opening up on Nato troops, well within the M-4's range.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/workhorse-rifle-failing-us-troops-in-afghanistan-1979987.html

[Gaillo]

There are so many technical details wrong in that article that it's hard to know where to start de-constructing it! Obviously written by someone with very little (if any) actual experience with firearms...

[Ponce]

In Viet Nam they found out that the main trouble was the powder being use in the cartridge and the recoil spring.

[willie pete]

The 5.56mm bullet is lightweight, but at 300m, it still has a velocity around 2000 fps, most have more, and at least 300-400 foot-pounds, while the 7.62 X 39 round has a few hundred more foot-pounds at 300m, the 5.56mm is still in the fight, and of course if you want to throw the 7.62 (NATO) in, at 300m it's got more than twice the foot-pounds than the 7.62 X 39

[Gaillo]

In Viet Nam they found out that the main trouble was the powder being use in the cartridge and the recoil spring.


Correct - that and the lack of cleaning kits and supplies shipped over with the first batches of rifles. The cartridge was specified to use IMR (Stick) type powder, but military contractors changed it to ball powder to save costs. The ball powders burned "dirtier", which tended to foul the actions faster.

Other fvckups with the M16 included changing the barrel twist rate without a corresponding change of bullet weight, which caused the bullets to properly stabilize. This might sound like a GOOD thing, and it generally is in terms of accuracy and long-range trajectory - but in terms of bullet performance/wounding it is actually quite detrimental. An understabilized bullet (like the initial M16 barrel twist/bullet weight combination would create) will "tumble" and keyhole when hitting flesh, causing viscious wound channels. A properly stabilized bullet, on the otherhand, will tend to punch straight through like a pencil unless interrupted by bone, etc. The lack of proper bullet "marginal stabilization" has continued to plague the weapon to this day - although recent moves toward heavier (69gr. and 77gr.) bullets by certain service branches has begun to address this issue.

Another problem was the lack of chrome lining of the bore in the inital weapons, which would often result in rust in the humid Vietnam jungles.

Of course, the biggest problem with the M16 is... well... that it's the M16! The mechanical design of the weapon, although very accurate, is NOT very tolerant of dirt and improper cleaning. Tolerances are tight, and allow for very little foreign matter contamination of the mechanism. This problem is exasperated by the direct-gas-impingement system which exhausts blowback gas and powder residue directly back into the action. This is often the reason that many people looking for a good SHTF firearm will gravitate toward the AK-47, despite it's inferior accuracy and heavier/bulkier ammunition.

[LuckyStrike]

They should go .308 IMO, that is the best battle rifle caliber.

I'd still take the 7.62x39 over the .223 but for the author to say it's effective past 400m proves he has never fired an AK.

[Ponce]

The worse thing that the army did was to get rid of the M-1 Garand rifle....simple to use and simple to clean........and with the power of a A bomb.

[Gaillo]

They should go .308 IMO, that is the best battle rifle caliber.

I'd still take the 7.62x39 over the .223 but for the author to say it's effective past 400m proves he has never fired an AK.


Yep. The article is full of errors like that. Sure, you can kill with either cartridge past 400m, but a cartridge is only as "effective" as its ability to HIT what you're aiming at - a VERY iffy proposition with an AK at that range.

I like the .308, and it's indisputable that it's an effective battle rifle caliber. My personal favorite battle rifle design of all time is the M1 Garand chambered in .308 - reliable, accurate, hard hitting, and durable. However, I think that technological advances have produced several cartridges that are arguably better than the .308 in terms of lightweight/lower bulk ammunition, better ballistics, and (in some cases) improved inherent cartridge accuracy. One of those cartridges is the 6.5 Grendel, another (for accuracy) is the 6mm PPC. Too bad corresponding improvements in rifle design haven't kept up. I'm of the personal opinion that the IDEAL infantry cartridge will have a case size somewhere between the .223 Rem. and the 7.62x39, and a caliber somewhere between 6mm and 7mm.

My personal choice out of all of them, for now, is the .260 Rem. - a .308 Win. case necked down to 6.5mm. VASTLY underrated cartridge, with drop ballistics equal to a .300 Win. Magnum, and recoil only slightly stiffer than a .243 Win. Unfortunately, it's a handload-only proposition - there's a serious lack of factory loaded ammunition available. Plenty of brass available, though... I just re-size .308 Win. brass through 7mm-08, followed by .260 sizing dies! Now... if I could only get someone to take a .308 M1 Garand and re-barrel it for .260! ;D

[hoarder]

My personal choice out of all of them, for now, is the .260 Rem. - a .308 Win. case necked down to 6.5mm. VASTLY underrated cartridge, with drop ballistics equal to a .300 Win. Magnum, and recoil only slightly stiffer than a .243 Win. Unfortunately, it's a handload-only proposition - there's a serious lack of factory loaded ammunition available. Plenty of brass available, though... I just re-size .308 Win. brass through 7mm-08, followed by .260 sizing dies! Now... if I could only get someone to take a .308 M1 Garand and re-barrel it for .260! ;D
I think you're on to something. How much of a weight advantage does the 260 have over the .308?
I like the idea of an AR15 in 6.8SPC, but no cheap ammo.
Just about anything between .22 and 30 caliber with cheap ammo would look attractive to me.

[Gaillo]

My personal choice out of all of them, for now, is the .260 Rem. - a .308 Win. case necked down to 6.5mm. VASTLY underrated cartridge, with drop ballistics equal to a .300 Win. Magnum, and recoil only slightly stiffer than a .243 Win. Unfortunately, it's a handload-only proposition - there's a serious lack of factory loaded ammunition available. Plenty of brass available, though... I just re-size .308 Win. brass through 7mm-08, followed by .260 sizing dies! Now... if I could only get someone to take a .308 M1 Garand and re-barrel it for .260! ;D
I think you're on to something. How much of a weight advantage does the 260 have over the .308?
I like the idea of an AR15 in 6.8SPC, but no cheap ammo.
Just about anything between .22 and 30 caliber with cheap ammo would look attractive to me.


Almost no weight advantage over .308, they're the same size case, use approx. the same quantity of powder, and the projectiles are only about 50 grains different in weight... I chose the .260 for ballistic reasons, not ammo weight/bulk reasons.

If you are looking at something similar to 6.8SPC, I STRONGLY urge you to look into the 6.5 Grendel - probably the best attempt yet made at a compromise between ammunition weight, energy, and long-range effectiveness. You will not find any cheap ammo for it either, though.

One cartridge that gets practically ZERO attention is something called the 6x45. It is a .223 Rem. case necked UP to 6mm (.243). It is very popular in South Africa among small-medium game hunters, but has remained almost unknown in America. It is easy to re-barrel an AR in 6x45 (several barrel manufactureres offer it as an option), and NOTHING else on the gun needs to be modified. Can use the same magazines, same bolt, etc. From what I've read, it gives you about 20-25% improvement in energy and ballistics over the .223, and other than the handloading-only aspect, might be an ideal replacement for .223 if you're looking for a more effective cartridge in the same platform.

[Steal]

Shot a FAL for first time couple weeks back. That friggin riffle rocked on a 100yd range. On my to get list or maybe the DSA STG58 American version, depending on funds. Anyone ever shoot a M14 (sounds like a heavy riffle ) Guy next to us had a AR-10, I just liked to simple look and power of the FAL though.

[Gaillo]

Shot a FAL for first time couple weeks back. That friggin riffle rocked on a 100yd range. On my to get list or maybe the DSA STG58 American version, depending on funds. Anyone ever shoot a M14 (sounds like a heavy riffle ) Guy next to us had a AR-10, I just liked to simple look and power of the FAL though.


FAL's do indeed rock, as do M-14's (or the semi-auto M1A for us lowly civilians! ;D). Both rifles are heavy, however, as are pretty much any .308 battle rifle. Those machines were built back in the day, when men were men and 15 pound rifles were the norm! ;)

I'm not much of an AR-10 fan, I have several friends who own them and they are basically "scaled up" AR-15's, with all the associated problems. They're probably your best bet for a lightweight .308 battle rifle though... I've heard that there is at least one 8lb. .308 version available (DPMS Panther). One other thing, the AR-10 is one of the only platforms you can get a .243 Win., .260 Rem., and other oddball .308 variants in.

[hoarder]

If you are looking at something similar to 6.8SPC, I STRONGLY urge you to look into the 6.5 Grendel - probably the best attempt yet made at a compromise between ammunition weight, energy, and long-range effectiveness. You will not find any cheap ammo for it either, though.

One cartridge that gets practically ZERO attention is something called the 6x45. It is a .223 Rem. case necked UP to 6mm (.243). It is very popular in South Africa among small-medium game hunters, but has remained almost unknown in America. It is easy to re-barrel an AR in 6x45 (several barrel manufactureres offer it as an option), and NOTHING else on the gun needs to be modified. Can use the same magazines, same bolt, etc. From what I've read, it gives you about 20-25% improvement in energy and ballistics over the .223, and other than the handloading-only aspect, might be an ideal replacement for .223 if you're looking for a more effective cartridge in the same platform.
For military type use, an important issue is weight. For the civilian market buying miltary type rifles, ammo availablity is the issue.
Niether of the two cartridges you mention fit the bill in terms of ammo availability, but if the 6x45 can be re-sized by home reloaders it has great potential. I need to do some research on this.

[Gaillo]

If you are looking at something similar to 6.8SPC, I STRONGLY urge you to look into the 6.5 Grendel - probably the best attempt yet made at a compromise between ammunition weight, energy, and long-range effectiveness. You will not find any cheap ammo for it either, though.

One cartridge that gets practically ZERO attention is something called the 6x45. It is a .223 Rem. case necked UP to 6mm (.243). It is very popular in South Africa among small-medium game hunters, but has remained almost unknown in America. It is easy to re-barrel an AR in 6x45 (several barrel manufactureres offer it as an option), and NOTHING else on the gun needs to be modified. Can use the same magazines, same bolt, etc. From what I've read, it gives you about 20-25% improvement in energy and ballistics over the .223, and other than the handloading-only aspect, might be an ideal replacement for .223 if you're looking for a more effective cartridge in the same platform.
For military type use, an important issue is weight. For the civilian market buying miltary type rifles, ammo availablity is the issue.
Niether of the two cartridges you mention fit the bill in terms of ammo availability, but if the 6x45 can be re-sized by home reloaders it has great potential. I need to do some research on this.



I'll save you some research. Yes, the 6x45 can be re-sized from .223 Rem. brass - one of the reasons I personally find it to be an attractive option for AR-15 owners. I'm planning on re-barrelling an AR-15 later this year for that cartridge.

[crazychicken]

They should go .308 IMO, that is the best battle rifle caliber.

I'd still take the 7.62x39 over the .223 but for the author to say it's effective past 400m proves he has never fired an AK.


Still take the M14 over either one.

CC

[crazychicken]

If you are looking at something similar to 6.8SPC, I STRONGLY urge you to look into the 6.5 Grendel - probably the best attempt yet made at a compromise between ammunition weight, energy, and long-range effectiveness. You will not find any cheap ammo for it either, though.

One cartridge that gets practically ZERO attention is something called the 6x45. It is a .223 Rem. case necked UP to 6mm (.243). It is very popular in South Africa among small-medium game hunters, but has remained almost unknown in America. It is easy to re-barrel an AR in 6x45 (several barrel manufactureres offer it as an option), and NOTHING else on the gun needs to be modified. Can use the same magazines, same bolt, etc. From what I've read, it gives you about 20-25% improvement in energy and ballistics over the .223, and other than the handloading-only aspect, might be an ideal replacement for .223 if you're looking for a more effective cartridge in the same platform.
For military type use, an important issue is weight. For the civilian market buying miltary type rifles, ammo availablity is the issue.
Niether of the two cartridges you mention fit the bill in terms of ammo availability, but if the 6x45 can be re-sized by home reloaders it has great potential. I need to do some research on this.



I'll save you some research. Yes, the 6x45 can be re-sized from .223 Rem. brass - one of the reasons I personally find it to be an attractive option for AR-15 owners. I'm planning on re-barrelling an AR-15 later this year for that cartridge.


I sure would like to hear more about that.

CC

[hoarder]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=493137

[Twisted Titan]

............................

[Black Blade]

Short version - you have 1) AR-15 (M16 and variants) more accurate at distance, lighter in weight, requires more maintenance and is more expensive; and 2) AK-47 less accurate but more powerful and better penetration. The AK-47 has looser tolerances so it's nearly indestructable and so easy to use that a child conscript or illiterate peasant in the Third World can operate it. Of course in SE Asia some non-combloc military and contract personnel would carry a captured AK as the M16 was prone to malfunctions under less than sterile field conditions. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and depending on the situation one may be better than the other. All in all, I would say that they are about equally decent weapons. Having been on both the firing and recieving ends of these weapons over the years, I have a collection of AK-47s because they are cheaper and the ammunition is both abundant and cheaper.

There are exceptions of course because there are many variations on these two platforms. For example, some Izhmash Russian and Arsenal Bulgarian AK-47s are nearly as or just as accurate as the AR-15 or M16. Still often it like comparing apples and oranges.

Pro & Con of both weapons in testing and combat situations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf6CxQh3YXA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG8iYWD7x7o&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXWaV7qCpk8&feature=player_embedded

[undgrd]

I'll save you some research. Yes, the 6x45 can be re-sized from .223 Rem. brass - one of the reasons I personally find it to be an attractive option for AR-15 owners. I'm planning on re-barrelling an AR-15 later this year for that cartridge.


Personally, I would consider a full upper rather than re-barreling if funds permit. It would be easier from an usability standpoint to simply swap uppers IMO.

[Hellsbane]

The worse thing that the army did was to get rid of the M-1 Garand rifle....simple to use and simple to clean........and with the power of a A bomb.



I would prefer the M2, " the full auto version that could hold 30 rounds ". I would still want some changes though. Add 6" to the barrel and chamber it for the 30.06 instead of the standard 30 cal. round. I would also want them to do away with the full auto function and instead have it shoot short 3 round burst and add a bipod to it. Even with the extra weight of the longer barrel and heavier rounds, it would still buck around like an AK47 on full auto. Its strickly a range weapon though so for up close and personal i would prefer a machine pistol type weapon. For single targets in close, a semi auto pistol would do just fine.

[Quantum]

Gee, we wouldn't have this problem if the US hadn't invaded another people's country?

Iraq - No role in 9/11

Afghanistan - No role in 9/11

Saudi Arabia - definite role in 9/11

Pakistan, particularly, the ISI (the regime Washington props up) - definite role in 9/11

"Israel," particularly, Mossad - definite role in 9/11

[steyr_m]

This is news? They've been talking about the replacing the 5.56x45mm NATO (.223) with the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC for quite awhile. That would be a welcome change esp. with the Grendel. For everyone to carry a rifle chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO (.308) wouldn't be practical. Sorry, but the move to the M1 Garand would be a bad change. They were good for their time. The 7.62x51mm matches the 30-06.

The AK-47's 7.62 mm round is effective at more than 400m, but not shot from the AK. It isn't as accurate as the M-16/M-4. I was talking with a good friend last night that just came back from A-stan 3 weeks ago. He said the TB are using Dragunovs which fires the 7.62x54mmR, from a distance; but not the AK.

On a side note. I think they should move to the HK416 chambered in 6.5 Grendel with a 12-14 inch barrel for the standard side arm. the M110 Sniper weapon for medium range, and the Barret in .50 BMG for longer range.