Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?


VietVet
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like the AR - own 2 currently, and have owned a lot of others as well - but then, I'm NOT fighting "stinky mo-fo's" in the sandboxes either. If I thought .223 was the end-all, be-all of rifle rounds, I wouldn't ALSO own an AK and a PTR91. As us OLD school hotrodders like to say - "Ain't no substitute for cubic inches" - so too the the same could be said for bullet size/weight - ain't no substitute for MASS.

 

I like to see the development of new cartridges for the platform, if indeed, we seem to find the PLATFORM the end-all, be-all of design. Even as we have come BACK around to larger rounds for sidearms for the military, I think we'll see the same with rifle rounds eventually.

 

My $.02 worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the AR - own 2 currently, and have owned a lot of others as well - but then, I'm NOT fighting "stinky mo-fo's" in the sandboxes either. If I thought .223 was the end-all, be-all of rifle rounds, I wouldn't ALSO own an AK and a PTR91. As us OLD school hotrodders like to say - "Ain't no substitute for cubic inches" - so too the the same could be said for bullet size/weight - ain't no substitute for MASS.

 

I like to see the development of new cartridges for the platform, if indeed, we seem to find the PLATFORM the end-all, be-all of design. Even as we have come BACK around to larger rounds for sidearms for the military, I think we'll see the same with rifle rounds eventually.

 

My $.02 worth.

 

There is no replacement for displacement. Unless you have a supercharger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's small arms that really make the difference in war. There's a reason why Gen. Paten said that; not a tank, bomber or the atom bomb, but the M-1 Garand battle rifle was the greatest battle implement ever devised.

 

Frankly, our military (or politicians) have been completely ignoring that. Here they squander our money on bettering the big guns while completely ignoring much better small arm technology when it's staring them in the face. First off, the reason 6.8SPC was very hard to get back in the first half of the decade is because the military was buying up all the ammo and testing. My friend told me that he knew some seals who had fielded the round in real combat and loved it. What do we do? After all this money spent on ammo and testing, we dump it.

 

Then we come to battle rifles. A fortune was spent in developing new battle rifles to compete for replacing the M-16. What we come up with is the FN-2000 and HK XM-8. They may have been foreign designs, but they work and work good! I have heard all kinds of alleged reasons why the XM-8 was dropped, but so far, not a thing from HK or the military, and as much as I hate to admit it (I do not like HK as a company) the XM-8 was a great rifle. One alleged reason for dropping the XM-8 was it's dissimilarity from our M-16, which would require too much change in our training (so what) and that theory is at least supported by the fact that they dumped the XM-8 and went to the 416, which, as far as I know, the military STILL hasn't done anything with.

 

So, we had both a good cartridge AND some good battle rifles come our way, and we just tossed them aside to stick with a weapon that's been getting us in trouble ever since it first went in to combat in Viet Nam. In the mien time, our enemies are coming at us with a half a century old weapon that almost never fails and has killed more people then any other weapon design ever.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the M-16, I think it's a good gun and I even plan to get an AR-15, but there are better things out there and fix its for the M-16 if you DON'T want to go to something new, yet we are just ignoring it, and possibly at the cost of our troops lives.

Edited by brigadier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know, I would rather carry 400 rnds then 200 rnds of ammo

Not when 200 rounds can produce 189 deathes compaired ot the 400 rounds producing less than 100. There is a reason why the 223/556 is not reccommended to kill deer. It was never desinged to kill things that weigh more than 60 lbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deer analogy makes sense, as I wouldn't hunt a 150lbs animal with anything less than a .30 cal.

 

And man is an animal.

 

I will bow to your experience ...obviously.

:laugh: Just an observation of simple phisycs. Mass and speed create more hydrostatic shock requiring less accuricy, allowing for a larger window for error. I can assure though that error is never more prone than when sombody is shooting at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a Google search on the author, RICHARD LARDNER. Looks like he focuses on military issues but writes for a lot of liberal rags. I thought it odd that all of a sudden the M4 and some other weapon systems start to become labeled as "unreliable". The last time I heard that one was when the M16 was first intorduced in Viet Nam. Of course to my knowledge the problems that surfaced then were successfully addressed . Just wanted to get some insights from others.

 

Also, my apologies to everyone for the duplicate thread. I don't know how that happened.

Edited by bankerrkt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when 200 rounds can produce 189 deathes compaired ot the 400 rounds producing less than 100. There is a reason why the 223/556 is not reccommended to kill deer. It was never desinged to kill things that weigh more than 60 lbs.

 

My dad's old school. His philosophy regarding a service cartridge is if you can't take a deer with it, it doesn't belong on the battle field. As the cartridge goes, I agree. I also think this article is somewhat suspect. What we've got here is not an news article, but an argumentative essay. What were your emotions as you read the article? Dismay? Concern? Incredulity?

 

I saw an re-enactment on a documentary on TV one day simulating a G.I. in a firefight on some island in the Pacific in the early forties. His M-1 jammed. So he picked up the next one off of the body next to him. It failed too. He eventually quelled the attack, and walked away from that one.

 

Even the best of small arms fail.

 

Ever notice how the media screams one more soldier died tonight on the lonely battlefields of Afghanistan? The media was doing the same thing in Vietnam. What we've got here is the same tired model of low intensity warfare that was used in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf war. The Afghan campaign is lost already. We need to know from Obama are we in Afghanistan to kill Al-Queda or are we there to ensure little girls can go to school and have the option to wear mini dresses? It's a Liberal war now. It's over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i call a huge :big_bs2: on this entire article.., i have never been in a fire fight like those guys, but i have done several 30 round mag dumps just to see how long it would take for my weapon to malfunction, i done 5 in a row the weapon got very hot and smokin, but never failed.

 

BTW it was a Colt 6721.., i like heavy barrels and a 1-9 twist, as that twist will stabilize any bullet weight from 55 Gr. to 75 Gr., as proven to myself thru reloading.

 

 

 

 

 

:usa1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:laugh: Just an observation of simple phisycs. Mass and speed create more hydrostatic shock requiring less accuricy, allowing for a larger window for error. I can assure though that error is never more prone than when sombody is shooting at you.

 

 

I agree with almost everything that most have said on this particular thread. A single shot from a 5.56 will drop any man if placed in his brain housing group. However, the military does not spend the time or the money to teach it's warriors to have this capability. I have dropped many deer with the .223 but this is because i have no problem putting the round right at the base of the skull. As much as i love the M-16/AR-15 platform, i firmly believe that our military should be armed with a .30 caliber round. I think we should go back to the m-14. There is one might fine battle rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M14 with a 20 round mag. :oh yea:

 

Sorry, this argument has been around a long time and a combat rifle fills more roles than one shot one kill. In laying down suppressive fire the more rounds the better.

 

Now when you guys come up with the gun that will fire a .30 caliber bullet that weighs the same as a 5.56mm and produces less heat when fired not more, you'll have something. Until then this bridge was crossed in the early 60s and a rifle was born that has, almost from day one, proven its self as more effective effective in combat than the heavier slower rate of fire guns.

 

All this author has done is bring up a very old issue and present as new.

 

Tj

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...