US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

300WSM

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 29, 2004
1,389
6
WI
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_bullet_wars

KABUL, Afghanistan – The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.

The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.

"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.

"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."

The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

IMO the perfect weapon system would be a scope of say 1.0-8x30mm on a bullpup rifle that shoots 6.5mm OTM high BC bullets. You'd have your closer qtrs and your distance rifle all in one and your barrel length and a scope that could bet CQ and distance out to say 800 meters. IMO of course
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

Or we could do what the Infantry School and the AMU are doing, using 77 grn SMKs in 20 in barrels in the DM configeration.

The heavier bullets DO WORK at extended ranges. Look at the scores at the Service Rifle 1000 yard matches, The M-16 has beat the records set by the M14s.

Being a M14/M1A guy, this was hard for me to accept, but you can't argue with results.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or we could do what the Infantry School and the AMU are doing, using 77 grn SMKs in 20 in barrels in the DM configeration.

The heavier bullets DO WORK at extended ranges. Look at the scores at the Service Rifle 1000 yard matches, The M-16 has beat the records set by the M14s.

Being a M14/M1A guy, this was hard for me to accept, but you can't argue with results. </div></div>

==================================================================================================================

Just wondering what will a 77 grain bullet do better at 800 yards than 168gr., 308...other than maybe have a better group on paper?



I mentioned the subject of this story on Yahoo 10yrs ago to my Army buddy...
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

With M110's in play, this is just an article to make it look like soldiers don't have what they need...

If you have a DM and bad guys are past 300 then (THis is a question) it would seem some good cover, a DM or Sniper and the tables turn.

Add a JDAM or Apache in, non issue.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: exmr2sw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, we could dust off some more M14's. I know some units are have done that already. </div></div>
Yes I agree. there is no perfect Gun/Bullet so have several different caliber/variant guns so the troops can have the option.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

They seemed to work the other morning when the Taliban decided to attack the main ECP at Bagram Air Field. What kind of asshat sends 30 to attack a main Coalition base? No onder the Islamic nations are all third world without Western assistance, all the smart ones died off a long time ago
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

So back on 20 Feb, thebolt posted a thread about the Marines going to a more lethal hollowpoint round because the bullets being fired from their SCAR 13.8" barrels were proving ineffective. Makes me wonder, is the <span style="font-style: italic">rifle</span> really the problem or is the <span style="font-style: italic">bullet</span> the problem?

Linky to the original Military Times article.- http://militarytimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

all i know is a mk262 77gr. 5.56, shot from a mk12, WILL put a Timmy-Taliban on his back at 650m that is a fact. but that’s not to say i wouldn’t want a larger round just in case.
smile.gif
im all for two or three ar-10 platform in the hands of a average rifle squad to expand there capabilities
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dm-frosty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all i know is a mk262 77gr. 5.56, shot from a mk12, WILL put a Timmy-Taliban on his back at 650m that is a fact. but that&#146;s not to say i wouldn&#146;t want a larger round just in case.
smile.gif
im all for two or three ar-10 platform in the hands of a average rifle squad to expand there capabilities</div></div> as Donald Rumsfeld once said, you don't go to war with the Army you want, you go to war with the Army you have...now, give us the 308's back so we can shoot distances.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dm-frosty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all i know is a mk262 77gr. 5.56, shot from a mk12, WILL put a Timmy-Taliban on his back at 650m that is a fact. but that’s not to say i wouldn’t want a larger round just in case.
smile.gif
im all for two or three ar-10 platform in the hands of a average rifle squad to expand there capabilities</div></div>

That wasn't my experience at all and at 650 meters you have to be joking.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dm-frosty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all i know is a mk262 77gr. 5.56, shot from a mk12, WILL put a Timmy-Taliban on his back at 650m that is a fact. but that’s not to say i wouldn’t want a larger round just in case.
smile.gif
im all for two or three ar-10 platform in the hands of a average rifle squad to expand there capabilities</div></div>

That wasn't my experience at all and at 650 meters you have to be joking. </div></div>

nope not joking. took me three shots to hit, do to our chaotic situation, but once it hit him he was down for the count. When we got up there for the BDA it was a solid upper sternum shot with no exit wound. and i saw very little movement from him between time of impact to time of assessment. I am convinced that bullets have a life of their own sometimes and once they leave the end of that rifle they can do some crazy shit from time to time. maybe i just got a lucky shot, who knows. i cant really prove it i guess unless you were there but what ever, take it for what its worth.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dm-frosty</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dm-frosty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all i know is a mk262 77gr. 5.56, shot from a mk12, WILL put a Timmy-Taliban on his back at 650m that is a fact. but that’s not to say i wouldn’t want a larger round just in case.
smile.gif
im all for two or three ar-10 platform in the hands of a average rifle squad to expand there capabilities</div></div>

That wasn't my experience at all and at 650 meters you have to be joking. </div></div>

nope not joking. took me three shots to hit, do to our chaotic situation, but once it hit him he was down for the count. When we got up there for the BDA it was a solid upper sternum shot with no exit wound. and i saw very little movement from him between time of impact to time of assessment. but bullets are crazy and once they leave the end of that rifle they can do some crazy shit from time to time. maybe i just got a lucky shot, who knows.
</div></div>

No offense but I would call that luck man. The bullet just happened to find the sweet spot; I would not rely on that happening too often at that range.

Karamojo Bell used to use a 6.5mm to hunt elephants using a rear quartering brain shot. Many men died attempting to replicate him.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

hey no offense taken man. I know where your coming from. all I’m saying is the 5.56 can do the job there is just so many other options that can do it better and more effectively. i think we can agree on that.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

5.56 heavies out of a good rifle aimed with an optic is easy to 700 if you can read wind. You've got up to 31 chances to poke a hole in a target to let the air out.

Don't know why that's so hard to believe.

The bullet doesn't have to go through or come out -- it just has to smash the CPU and peripherals.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5.56 heavies out of a good rifle aimed with an optic is easy to 700 if you can read wind. You've got up to 31 chances to poke a hole in a target to let the air out.

Don't know why that's so hard to believe.

The bullet doesn't have to go through or come out -- it just has to smash the CPU and peripherals. </div></div>

An icepick will prove that
grin.gif
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hill

People need to consider the elevation in Afghanistan and understand the bullet will fly better... 650m with a 77 Mk262 should be a non-issue, I know the Rangers were making kills with the Mk12 beyond 650m, on a regular basis.

Elevation is your friend...
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Elevation is your friend... </div></div>

Softball!
smirk.gif
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hill

Strange stuff... Seems the obvious has happened. Someone finally figured it out. Or is this about the Pentagon, contracts and maybe some kickbacks? Unfortunately it could still take years before the right weapons fall into the right hands.
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hill

No.

I think that because we are a site that is biased toward precision, we lose sight of the concept of fire and maneuver warfare.

All of those high round counts per kill in the various conflicts are not particularly a product of poor marksmanship. The critics never consider this. Rather, they are a realization that for every ultimate kill shot, a lot of massed supporting fire is needed to accomplish the second of the four 'F's. (Find 'em, fix 'em, fight 'em, finish 'em). The massed supporting fire denies the Opfor the freedom of maneuver and forces them to find and use cover, where they can be flanked and outmaneuvered, then overrun and neutralized.

The Infantry <span style="font-style: italic">Team</span> soldier has a different task from the precision marksman, and his tools and tactics reflect this. Infantry is a <span style="font-style: italic">Team</span> Sport.

The AR platform, with its easily carried smaller caliber ammunition, supports this doctrine very well; and the 5.56 round's portability in larger volumes is an asset which is key to the doctrine. The Russians paid this combination the ultimate compliment when they copied it.

Snipers don't take and hold ground, Infantry does. As Marines, we are well grounded in the principles of marksmanship, but our primary purpose is to be the world's best Copter Borne and Amphibious Light Infantry Team. Opinions vary, and that's mine.

Greg
 
Re: US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hill

i wonder if this one is "suited" ?



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The South African Denel-Mechem NTW-20mm Anti-Material Rifle qualifies quite admirably for the title of Worlds Most Powerful Sniper Rifle, and I don't think that this will be disputed.

This rifle is a serious "take no prisoners" weapon !
http://www.vincelewis.net/20mm.html
</div></div>