Study: Soldiers Want Deadlier Guns - Page 5

OPFOR · May 29th, 2007, 08:20 PM

Yes, FMJ is generally better at defeating body armor. However, the vast majority of BGs over there are not wearing armor, and I think that a round like the 5.56N will defeat soft body armor in almost any configuration, and will likewise be defeated by hard body armor in almost any configuration. FMJ will, of course, better against hard obstacles in most cases.... Here is a situation where it might be a good idea to have mixed JHP/FMJ in your mags, assuming identical reliability and nearly identical POA/POI.

In pistols, especially in 9mm, JHP is almost always the better choice, IMO. Soldiers have rifles (and rockets, and bombs) to defeat obstacles - pistols are for up close and personal work, and JHP excels in that arena.

obxned · May 29th, 2007, 10:41 PM

We own the sky and the sea with our technologically advance weapons. Why not the land. Are we too cheap or too stupid???

229DAK · May 29th, 2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIXTO

true, but NATO holds us to it.

Wrong. The lawyers hold us to it.

rhinokrk · May 30th, 2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwebel

Ball ammo in a 9mm for combat is just plain stupid #1, I wouldn't carry it in my gun for SD, so why should our troops have to. I do think it is time for a new rifle platform. With the advances in low-recoil weapon tech, a larger round should be used. I bet ya in WW2, no one complained about the stopping power of a 30-06, 303brit, 8mm, or a 7.62x54r.

Ball ammo makes perfect sense for combat, 1 injured soldier/combatant = 2 -3 men/women out or the fight. I wouldn't carry FMJ for SD either... of course I don't have another 3-28 men backing me up with a large assortment of high powered rifles and other intermediate weapons.

Combatants might not have complained about the stopping power of the 308, 30-06, or many other rounds... but I will bet hard cash they were complaining about capacity and about the total rounds they were able to carry. Many times in combat, the side that throws the most rounds downrange is the 'winner'. Sgt. York is an amazing story, but is a misconception. When engaged with a larger force, your best bet is to run and gun. The more rounds you can throw down range in troubled times (read retreating, or finding a better place to put up a solid stand), the better chance of survival.

YMMV

rhinokrk · May 30th, 2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

.357Sig for the pistol (Will do better against body armour)

6.8mm for the rifle

7.62 for the MG

Cold war is over. We are not dealing with an organized well equiped force any more. The best BO the emeny has is 'flak jackets. circa 1980's).

357sig, is rediculesly expensive, the 6.8 round seems to look a lot better on paper than in the field, and the 7.62 doesn't have the range.

YMMV

OPFOR · May 30th, 2007, 10:36 AM

rhinokrk -

In your first post, you mention that ball is better than JHP because it wounds rather than kills - thus requiring other enemy troops to tend to the wounded and taking more than just the injured person out of the fight. In your second post, you mention that we are not fighting a well organized, professional army. The second point nullifies the first. The enemy does not have medics, stretchers, casualty collection points, MEDEVAC, or anything along those lines. They will not tie up extra bodies caring for the wounded in the middle of the fight. Many are suicidal to begin with, so no attempt at all will be made to help the wounded. We want these guys dead, dead, dead - not wounded and still in the fight. The "wound one, get three out of the fight" axiom may work against a force like ours, but not against a force like theirs. Also, the original post was referencing pistol ammo, and we absolutely aren't looking to wound at pistol distances.

Also, don't think that the enemy doesn't have at least limited quantities of modern, hard body armor. It is few and far between, but it's out there. I will agree that going with .357SIG to defeat body armor is pretty much a non-issue (pistol rounds, by and large, will be defeated by body armor, regardless), and the noise, flash, and reduced capacity of the .357SIG is worse (IMO, of course) then any increase in armor penetration you might achieve.

Lastly, what doesn't 7.62N have the range for? GPMG usage? Standard "assault rifle" usage? I'm confused on this point...

I do agree that capacity is, in most cases, more important than "power" for most infantry situations. I hope that we can find a compromise that maintains light weight/high capacity while increasing "power." Still waiting for that magic bullet, though...

Daddy Warcrimes · May 30th, 2007, 12:32 PM

The SAW did replace some M-60s as machine guns, but it mostly filled the automatic rifle role in the infantry. The M249 is a funny weapon in that it's either crew served or an individual weapon.

The biggest problem I've seen with the 249 is assignment. Prior to about 2002 (with the release of FM 3-21.71) mechanized infantry didn't have machine guns in the squads and the SAW was the heaviest weapon we had. The platoon leaders/sergeants had a nasty habit of assigning these weapons to poor performers as sort of a punishment. Higher maintenance weapon+substandard soldier=weapon malfunction. Blank rounds are trouble, box magazines are trouble, but the SAW has been pretty dang reliable when I've used it. It's by no means perfect, but IMO good enough.

5.56 seems for the most part to be an adequate round. I'm a firm believer that anything worth shooting is worth shooting dead, so I'd rather have something more potent (although 7.62 NATO is excessive in an assault rifle). I can also understand the reluctance to replace the many thousands of rifles already in inventory without significant leaps in technology. Heavier or +P ammo would be a an interim solution but that would have costs in ammo and weapon wear. Something about the power of the 6.8, 6.5, or 7.62x39 is about right I think.

9mm has got to be the dumbest ammo choice the military ever made. We went from .45 to .38, then back to .45 because the .38 wasn't powerful enough, then we essentially went back to .38 with the 9mm. If we don't change to something like .45, .357 Sig, .40, or 10mm, we should at least have +P ammo.

What I'm really wanting is a standardized 10mm bore for all small arms, electrically fired caseless ammo, and sabots for the rifles. Top it off with a bullpup design and internal generator to power the accessories.

Daddy Warcrimes · May 30th, 2007, 12:47 PM

I take issue with this:

Quote:

Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

This is like saying workplaces that allow guns are more likely to have a murder or households with insulin are more likely to have a diabetic. Rear elements generally don't have the PAQ-4, PEQ-2A, M-68, M-145, and other ninja junk to accessorize with. The front line hard chargers who have this gear in the first place are probably going to have more malfunctions even if they don't have the fuzzy dice hanging from the front sight.
If someone can explain to me how a properly mounted forward grip can interrupt the cycle of operations I'm willing to listen.

Blackeagle · May 30th, 2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes

If someone can explain to me how a properly mounted forward grip can interrupt the cycle of operations I'm willing to listen.

A guy posted this explanation over on the Warrior Talk board:

Quote:

It has been known and proven that the non-free floated rail i.e. KAC RAS/RIS have a contributing factor in the M4 failures. The torque placed on the rail directed to the barrel and barrel nut coupled with the heat build up in the bolt carrier group is enough to alter the barrel extension dimensions; therefore, enough to effect the bolt locking up within the extension. Add the pounding of a M203 and one can understand why the stress created is enough to induce bolt failure.

OPFOR · May 30th, 2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

The SAW did replace some M-60s as machine guns, but it mostly filled the automatic rifle role in the infantry. The M249 is a funny weapon in that it's either crew served or an individual weapon.

I agree that the SAW did replace some M60s in name, but they certainly didn't replace them in capability. The 249 just isn't a GPMG, no matter what the higher-ups think. In light/airborne/Ranger units (the only ones I have significant experience with), we never gave up any MGs for SAWs... I guess if you had no MGs to begin with, the SAW would be an improvement, but it just doesn't pack the "oomph" of the Pig/240.

Also, IIRC, 9mmN Ball is already loaded to what SAAMI would consider +P pressures... Keep in mind that in much of Europe, the 9mm is considered a very potent round, and that .380 (and similar) rounds are considered just fine for police and/or military use. We Americans are definately a "bigger is always better" culture, but that doesn't reflect the ideas of much of the world.

May 29th, 2007, 08:20 PM	#41
OPFOR VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Baghdad Posts: 2,422	Yes, FMJ is generally better at defeating body armor. However, the vast majority of BGs over there are not wearing armor, and I think that a round like the 5.56N will defeat soft body armor in almost any configuration, and will likewise be defeated by hard body armor in almost any configuration. FMJ will, of course, better against hard obstacles in most cases.... Here is a situation where it might be a good idea to have mixed JHP/FMJ in your mags, assuming identical reliability and nearly identical POA/POI. In pistols, especially in 9mm, JHP is almost always the better choice, IMO. Soldiers have rifles (and rockets, and bombs) to defeat obstacles - pistols are for up close and personal work, and JHP excels in that arena. __________________ "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

May 29th, 2007, 10:41 PM	#42
obxned Distinguished Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: OBX, NC Posts: 1,737	We own the sky and the sea with our technologically advance weapons. Why not the land. Are we too cheap or too stupid??? __________________ http://www.obxammo.com/ There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion. When governments make laws, they must consider the unintended consequences.

May 30th, 2007, 10:36 AM	#46
OPFOR VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Baghdad Posts: 2,422	rhinokrk - In your first post, you mention that ball is better than JHP because it wounds rather than kills - thus requiring other enemy troops to tend to the wounded and taking more than just the injured person out of the fight. In your second post, you mention that we are not fighting a well organized, professional army. The second point nullifies the first. The enemy does not have medics, stretchers, casualty collection points, MEDEVAC, or anything along those lines. They will not tie up extra bodies caring for the wounded in the middle of the fight. Many are suicidal to begin with, so no attempt at all will be made to help the wounded. We want these guys dead, dead, dead - not wounded and still in the fight. The "wound one, get three out of the fight" axiom may work against a force like ours, but not against a force like theirs. Also, the original post was referencing pistol ammo, and we absolutely aren't looking to wound at pistol distances. Also, don't think that the enemy doesn't have at least limited quantities of modern, hard body armor. It is few and far between, but it's out there. I will agree that going with .357SIG to defeat body armor is pretty much a non-issue (pistol rounds, by and large, will be defeated by body armor, regardless), and the noise, flash, and reduced capacity of the .357SIG is worse (IMO, of course) then any increase in armor penetration you might achieve. Lastly, what doesn't 7.62N have the range for? GPMG usage? Standard "assault rifle" usage? I'm confused on this point... I do agree that capacity is, in most cases, more important than "power" for most infantry situations. I hope that we can find a compromise that maintains light weight/high capacity while increasing "power." Still waiting for that magic bullet, though... __________________ "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

May 30th, 2007, 12:32 PM	#47
Daddy Warcrimes Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Kansas Posts: 473	The SAW did replace some M-60s as machine guns, but it mostly filled the automatic rifle role in the infantry. The M249 is a funny weapon in that it's either crew served or an individual weapon. The biggest problem I've seen with the 249 is assignment. Prior to about 2002 (with the release of FM 3-21.71) mechanized infantry didn't have machine guns in the squads and the SAW was the heaviest weapon we had. The platoon leaders/sergeants had a nasty habit of assigning these weapons to poor performers as sort of a punishment. Higher maintenance weapon+substandard soldier=weapon malfunction. Blank rounds are trouble, box magazines are trouble, but the SAW has been pretty dang reliable when I've used it. It's by no means perfect, but IMO good enough. 5.56 seems for the most part to be an adequate round. I'm a firm believer that anything worth shooting is worth shooting dead, so I'd rather have something more potent (although 7.62 NATO is excessive in an assault rifle). I can also understand the reluctance to replace the many thousands of rifles already in inventory without significant leaps in technology. Heavier or +P ammo would be a an interim solution but that would have costs in ammo and weapon wear. Something about the power of the 6.8, 6.5, or 7.62x39 is about right I think. 9mm has got to be the dumbest ammo choice the military ever made. We went from .45 to .38, then back to .45 because the .38 wasn't powerful enough, then we essentially went back to .38 with the 9mm. If we don't change to something like .45, .357 Sig, .40, or 10mm, we should at least have +P ammo. What I'm really wanting is a standardized 10mm bore for all small arms, electrically fired caseless ammo, and sabots for the rifles. Top it off with a bullpup design and internal generator to power the accessories. __________________ "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger" DW blog

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode