Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike504</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am in southern Afghanistan in Kandahar province; my unit has M14 EBRs. My Soldiers who are carrying them received them 3 months prior to deploying. They received a Tactical Tailor drag bag, Tactical Tailor scope cover, Tactical Tailor M-14 mag pouches, 5 magazines, a databook, a Kestrel 4000 windmeter, M24 mini-binoculars, and an Otis cleaning kit. They got a day of classroom training, followed by a week on the range at Ft. Lewis and two weeks (some on the ranges and some being taught TTPs for DMs) at Yakima Training Center, WA instructed by Brigade snipers and civilians from the CMP. My Soldiers fired about 800 rounds each during that time, and got on the range twice after the class and before deployment to shoot another couple hundred each.
The snipers have M110s, M24s, and M107s. They like the M110s, other than the fact that they break. The sniper section for another company in the Battalion had both M110s break in the first 3 months of the deployment. The M24s we (the Brigade) submitted an ONS (Operational Needs Statement- used to justify a request for equipment that is nonstandard or not permitted by the MTOE) to get changed over to .300WM, but the big Army shot it down. The snipers carry them, but no one likes moving through a village with a bolt action rifle at the ready, and the snipers generally carry an M4 in addition to the M24 (The weight starts to add up, plus he's got to figure out how to carry the ammo for both). The M107s are heavy and not as accurate as some other .50 cal SWS over here, but it has it’s niche. Some of the snipers have actually laid claim to M14 EBRs, because they are semiautomatic, reliable (we haven’t had ANY problems with any of them in 10 months of combat), the ones we have seem to hold zero pretty well, and accurate enough to get repeated hits on E type armorplate targets at 800m if the shooter and spotter are doing their parts. Some units in the Brigade have a DM in each squad, we have the M14s at platoon level teamed up with a DM and spotter. For us it has worked better that way so far.
Ammunition when we first got here was an issue. I scrounged from everywhere to get match grade- my guys have shot M118SB, M118LR, M852, .civ match ammo, Canadian match grade, M80 ball, and M993 AP. Kandahar Air Field’s ASP finally started to get things right, and my guys now go out with 100 rounds of M118LR for a basic load. We carry a couple extra boxes on the Strykers, but if the guys got to the point they had to they could shoot M80 ball taken from the nearest M240B. They have shot enough of it to know what it will do vs. the LR.
I set up a range at my FOB that has targets I had TASC at Ft. Lewis make- E type targets, F type targets, pepper poppers, and plates of various sizes, all made of steel able to withstand 7.62 AP. The range has targets from 200m out to 1350m, and we have 55 gallon barrels and some wrecked cars for the .50s to shoot at. My guys get out to the range about once a week, mission depending, and shoot 20-40 rounds each trip (driven mostly by the time available and by ammunition availability). They have been using the M14 for a little over a year now, and no one has bitched to me yet that it’s too heavy. It’s close to the same weight as an M24 all set up with rails and other stuff, and lighter than a SAW. As for accuracy, we don’t spend much time measuring shot groups on paper. However, my best shooter, on a bet, was able to hit a Bic lighter with one shot at 100m. He followed that up by shooting 3 12 GA shotshell hulls in 9 seconds at 100m. We are pretty confident of the DM’s abilities to take headshots at 400m, because we use #10 cans taken from the DFAC and filled with water to approximate a human head and all of the DMs can reliably hit them that far away. My best shooter is able to get hits on the cans as far as 600m about 3 of 4 shots.
I am sure that there are better rifles out there, but the M14 EBR is what we have, and it is getting the job done. Can another rifle do the job better? I am sure one could, but with the Army you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled up first. I could cry all day about what I don’t have and want, but it won’t do shit for the mission, the men, or me to do so. In the meantime I train my boys to do the best they can with what they have.
Mike </div></div>
This is one of the most interesting threads I have ever read. I suggested above in this thread that this program is about making the best of what we have and getting it into the field asap. This thread suggests that this program seems to have been troubled by; bad examples of the rifle early on, lack of training for the troops, lack of understanding of the systems application by commanders in the field and misunderstandings and both real and perceived maintenance/support issues.
Mike504s post is a breath of fresh air. It tells us that at least in part of the Army; the system is being used correctly, the system is mission capable, people have faith in the systems ability and (most importantly)some have the American "Can Do" attitude of doing the best you can with what you have. Thank you Mike. I hope Mike's post reflects a typical situation regarding this program within the Army.
The M14 platform has been slammed as being 1950s technology. Yes it is an old design. It was designed at the height of the cold war by men who could remember WWII and Korea. It was replaced during my generations war by the M16. I would suggest that Afghanistan with it's bare mountains has little in common with Vietnam's jungles. It has more in common with parts of Korea. I like the M16/AR15 platform. I qualified expert with the M16 in Basic. I own and shoot ARs in SP1, M4, A4 and Varmint configurations. I also own and shoot M1 Garands and a M1A NM and enjoy both. I'm still in my learning curve with the M1A NM.
However, in my view the 1950s, 7.62 caliber is the central issue where this program is concerned. The 1950s M14 is what we own. Making it the best it can be and issuing it while addressing the associated problems still seems to be the fastest short term solution to getting a longer range weapon into the hand of those in harms way.
Yes, I know the M16/AR15 platform has broken most of if not all the records of the M1/M14. But an eighty or ninety grain load that is to long for the magazine is not suitable for combat. The 77 grain combat loads are a great improvement over the 55 grain and 62 grain loads. However terminal ballistics are a factor and between 500 and 800 yards I'll take the 7.62.
It seems the final Army SDM program has a long way to go.
