Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

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


VietVet
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

Agreed. However. suppresive fired isn't used as it once was. I do not believe there will ever be a "perfect" gun. Certainly not a perfect weapon of war. There are to many different needs found on the battle field to have one weapon or one caliber fill the role.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I always thought that "jamming betty" was an issue with the troops in Viet Nam not getting proper cleaning equipment for their rifles?

 

 

I heard about this story on the radio this morning and they stated that all of the rifles were maintained and inspected. I would like to hear first hand what actualy happend and exactly which rifles are in question. I thought the fail to feed problem was fixed with changing the feed ramps to 52 degrees in order keep up with the increasing cyclic rates demanded by the Military?

 

 

 

eta: aren't they playing around with 6mm, .260 and .270 calibers lately for increased stopping power and longer range over the .556 in an AR platform?

 

Still would be hard to beat an M14 for an all around rifle.

Edited by KENNYOHIOHUNTER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is just a thought....

 

Isn't the biggest problem with the 5.56 that it just runs right through the bad guy and out the back?

 

Wouldn't a 6.8 or just about anything really that's been approved by NATO for soft targets do exactly that Except faster? And with MORE over penetration (I just wanted to say over penetration lol) I get whats being said but since NATO wont allow an expanding bullet aren't our hands kinda of tied? I could be wrong... just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Amen Brother! Preach it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know, I would rather carry 400 rnds then 200 rnds of ammo
How about 300 & kill every BG you hit?

 

 

this is just a thought....

 

Isn't the biggest problem with the 5.56 that it just runs right through the bad guy and out the back?

 

Wouldn't a 6.8 or just about anything really that's been approved by NATO for soft targets do exactly that Except faster? And with MORE over penetration (I just wanted to say over penetration lol) I get whats being said but since NATO wont allow an expanding bullet aren't our hands kinda of tied? I could be wrong... just a thought.

The problem is the weight of the bullet.

 

As much as I love the Ar-15 & M16, I think that with a GPU, it's a hole different rifle. I've never shot a GPU myself, but I think it is just awesome in terms of redirecting the heat out of the rifle that would allow the rifle to be abused in ways that a normal one would fail. I also think that a slightly larger caliber with better ballistics would be a better compromise. Jon I love ya but I'm going out on a thin limb here & say that outside of spec ops, a rifle in the military needs to have some sort of multitasking elements to it. BTW what happened to this rifle?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c

Edited by superstratjunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

YES SIR !!!+1 :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that "jamming betty" was an issue with the troops in Viet Nam not getting proper cleaning equipment for their rifles?

 

Partly. When AR15 rifles were first designed they were designed to use only extruded powder in the cases, not ball powder.

 

Extruded powder(which is shaped like a grain of rice compared to ball) is cleaner then ball.

 

But when the rifles were issued, they were given ammo filled with ball powder, since they already had ALOT of that stuff and didn't want to spend the money on extruded.

 

So the result was ammo that the gun was not designed for, and that resulted in the rifles getting dirty faster then expected.

 

Couple that with no cleaning kits, no chrome barrel in a jungle environment and soon you have serious problems.

 

BTW, my father, a AF man and lifelong hunter considered the 5.56 as a "22 round" and did not like them at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to have to argue against both points commonly expressed here.

 

First, yes, the whole of the reliability issues with the M-16 WERE cleared up, but that didn't change the fact that the action it's self limited the dependability of the gun under extreme circumstances. It may be more then reliable enough for sporting use, but when it comes to military weaponry, it has to be able to take on tons of dirt, withstand exposure to the elements, and suffer daily abuse to be suitable for military use, and the M-16, even with all the fix its the military has used over the years, is barely tolerable.

 

We all know this too. By hailing Addax Tactical's GPU, you are admitting that there are reliability issues with the gun. The GPU exists for that reason.

 

Now, when it comes to firepower, the M-16 is definitely a big gun in a small package. Able to push a 70gr bullet at around 3000fps, it easily qualifies as a high-powered rifle.

 

To this day, Snopes.com has a video on their website, showing a man commit suicide with a .45. The legendary man stopper only punched a clean hole in his skull. Compare that to the most famous video footage of gun gore of all time: The JFK assassination. In this video, the whole world watched a bullet roughly half the size of a .45 take 1/3 of JFK's head off!

 

This is a testament to the importance of energy.

 

The bullet that took 1/3 of JFK's head off was only a tiny bit thicker then the 5.56 round and and moves at a far slower speed.

 

The real problem with the M-16's firepower is dependability. If you hit someone in the head or dead zone with an M-16, you are going to mess them up. But if you hit them in the gut or some other soft spot, you probably won't do much more then make them mad, where the AK will mess someone up either way.

 

IMO, the 5.56 NATO IS sufficient, though it's still worth while to upgrade if we can. A great opportunity came with the 6.8 SPC, which was unfortunately passed up.

 

Convert all the M-16s to 6.8SPC and install GPUs, and I think the major reasons to complain will cease.

Edited by brigadier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the whole idea of supressing fire as a tactic suspect especially in a defensive position. If the purpose of the individual infantry soldier is to put lead in the air and hope the enemy runs into it and also to seek cover to avoid the enemies supressing fire we end up with battles that look like the Ohio shootout, only with more ammo and explosives. If that is how they fight, then it is no wonder they are breaking their guns. I am not faulting the fighting man in any way here, they do something that I do not, but it seems to me there is a better way of doing it. How about we give them 10/22s full auto of course. This would solve the issues of ammo weight and weapons overheating. This will give them far more ammo to spray and will still have the effect of keeping the other guys head down and hurting when they are hit. At the same time, dedicated shooters can target the enemy deliberately and effect kills with a serious rifle. Military tactics have evolved over the centuries, maybe the time to evolve again is here.

 

Guys, this is somewhat of a spoof, don't flame me please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the whole idea of supressing fire as a tactic suspect especially in a defensive position. If the purpose of the individual infantry soldier is to put lead in the air and hope the enemy runs into it and also to seek cover to avoid the enemies supressing fire we end up with battles that look like the Ohio shootout, only with more ammo and explosives. If that is how they fight, then it is no wonder they are breaking their guns. I am not faulting the fighting man in any way here, they do something that I do not, but it seems to me there is a better way of doing it. How about we give them 10/22s full auto of course. This would solve the issues of ammo weight and weapons overheating. This will give them far more ammo to spray and will still have the effect of keeping the other guys head down and hurting when they are hit. At the same time, dedicated shooters can target the enemy deliberately and effect kills with a serious rifle. Military tactics have evolved over the centuries, maybe the time to evolve again is here.

 

Guys, this is somewhat of a spoof, don't flame me please.

 

This is why i say suppressing fire isn't used as it once was. Nam for example, we knew not where the fire was coming from in the dense jungle, so we sprayed everything, hoping to keep them at bay until we could accomplish whatever it was we needed to accomplish. We don't really face issues like that currently. Its definitely much more of a one shot one kill situation. Well, should be atleast.......

 

Edited because i can't type

Edited by jonusmc5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppressive Fire can also used to Maneuver, such as a Single Envelopment. A basic but Classic maneuver against untrained /poorly trained talking monkeys. Or to Condense their mass for Arty or Air. Or to allow Medivac. Spray-and-pray isn't good but it can be used effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training, weapons , maintaince, yada yada.

Back in the day of the M1 we used a 150FMJ with a flat base. Everyone else was useing a spitzer with a full or slight boat tail. The US 150 had a real nasty habit of tumbling in the target. The rest of the worlds usually passed leaving a nice hole.

Now when Eugene Stoner designed the AR series rifle he did it with a slow barrel twist and a light bullet. Not real stable bullet with a habit of breaking up in the target. The Pentagon went thru to cut their costs and removed a lot of features from the M16. Then had to go back and redesign. On top of that the community of the rifleman in the military wanted a weapon that they could use at range. So that means faster twist rates in the barrel and heavier bt bullets.

Rock&Roll to 3rnd burst back to Rock&Roll.

Gas piston M1/M14, direct impengment to GPU.

Then they resurrect the original round the John Garand built the M1 for the 276 Penderson or Patterson ( I can't remember) now the 6.8 SPC.

Weapons fail. You read as many battle reports from the Civil was to now as I have. Weapons fail.

Civil was soldiers would get caught up in the action. Shoot ram rods or load the rifle and keep loading until he could get no more rounds in. The noise of battle they would not relise the weapon had not discharged. And on and on.

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...