- Thread starter TomS308
- Start date
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Man, air support would have been nice. I am no commando, and dont mean to armchair, but any weapon has limits. Mag after mag in quick succession in those dusty conditions? You are bound to have trouble. Instead of worrying about civilians, they need to worry abput AMERICANS!!
Man, air support would have been nice. I am no commando, and dont mean to armchair, but any weapon has limits. Mag after mag in quick succession in those dusty conditions? You are bound to have trouble. Instead of worrying about civilians, they need to worry abput AMERICANS!!
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I read this thinking,"yeah, and so..?" meaning, why write an article about this and publicize it? Was there a real need for the general public to know this? You can't blame the weapon. You can't blame the soldier. You can't blame the enemy. From what it sounds like, the enemy was unsuccessful in it's attack, so was this supposed to be a military failure that some nincompoop reporter busy body was trying to use as a political statement? Shit happens in war. It's sad, and it's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
I respect the rights of the media, but sometimes these pointless stories that are supposed to tug on the public emotions get very old. God Bless the dead soldiers and their families for their sacrafices.(I don't think that was ever mentioned in the article)
I read this thinking,"yeah, and so..?" meaning, why write an article about this and publicize it? Was there a real need for the general public to know this? You can't blame the weapon. You can't blame the soldier. You can't blame the enemy. From what it sounds like, the enemy was unsuccessful in it's attack, so was this supposed to be a military failure that some nincompoop reporter busy body was trying to use as a political statement? Shit happens in war. It's sad, and it's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
I respect the rights of the media, but sometimes these pointless stories that are supposed to tug on the public emotions get very old. God Bless the dead soldiers and their families for their sacrafices.(I don't think that was ever mentioned in the article)
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Air support.Though sometimes it can't be utilized effectively in "sensitive" areas...
Air support.Though sometimes it can't be utilized effectively in "sensitive" areas...
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: exhogflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Air support.Though sometimes it can't be utilized effectively in "sensitive" areas... </div></div>
That was my point. The primary sensitivity should be focused on winning, not making sure we dont offend anyone.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: exhogflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Air support.Though sometimes it can't be utilized effectively in "sensitive" areas... </div></div>
That was my point. The primary sensitivity should be focused on winning, not making sure we dont offend anyone.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve
I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
we found our GPMGS and LMG had similar problems, work really well until the heat got too much.
The L85 A2, SA80 on the other hand worked really well and i never had a stoppage in 6 months. So it looks like HK did a good job!
we found our GPMGS and LMG had similar problems, work really well until the heat got too much.
The L85 A2, SA80 on the other hand worked really well and i never had a stoppage in 6 months. So it looks like HK did a good job!
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that there are many that carry m-14's because of increased reliability in the dusty conditions there. I've also heard that a baggie is used to cover the m-4's.
Again, unsubstantiated!
Myself, I think I would opt for an AK or an m-14 in those conditions if I could.
I don't agree that the weapons our troops have are fine. Maybe I'd feel different if I had some $$ sunk into an AR. But I don't.
I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that there are many that carry m-14's because of increased reliability in the dusty conditions there. I've also heard that a baggie is used to cover the m-4's.
Again, unsubstantiated!
Myself, I think I would opt for an AK or an m-14 in those conditions if I could.
I don't agree that the weapons our troops have are fine. Maybe I'd feel different if I had some $$ sunk into an AR. But I don't.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Ok well I can explain alot of this away as I was an armorer in the 101st from 1999-2007.
This is pure comedy
"The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute."
Weapons care in units that are not "door kickers" fall well short of what they should be. Unless the unit is actively on patrol, those weapons are "wiped" down and not thouroughly cleaned. I have seen weapons so dirty, it made me wonder how they would fire at all.
I was the first unit from the 101st in afghanistan after 9/11. We arent door kickers by trade but became infantry troopers after pulling 24 hour guard on our wire. Our weapons were always well maintained due to my boot being in their asses.
There are many reasons for malfunction but if the information these reports are stating are true I would not blame it all on overheating. More than likely bad judgement in engagement.
First off this statement
"Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon."
SAW ammo comes in boxes of 200. It takes 11 seconds to reload a box in a saw. It takes 3 seconds to replace a barrel. If he unloaded box after box without barrel change then it is user error.
How many soldiers were rotating ammo
How many were field stripping versus wiping
How many were versed on the 249 (not taught to everyone)
Too many variables to blame on guns that I know can handle more from experience.
01-02 Afghanistan
03-04 Iraq
05-06 Iraq
I have some field experience.. a ton with military weapons
Ok well I can explain alot of this away as I was an armorer in the 101st from 1999-2007.
This is pure comedy
"The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute."
Weapons care in units that are not "door kickers" fall well short of what they should be. Unless the unit is actively on patrol, those weapons are "wiped" down and not thouroughly cleaned. I have seen weapons so dirty, it made me wonder how they would fire at all.
I was the first unit from the 101st in afghanistan after 9/11. We arent door kickers by trade but became infantry troopers after pulling 24 hour guard on our wire. Our weapons were always well maintained due to my boot being in their asses.
There are many reasons for malfunction but if the information these reports are stating are true I would not blame it all on overheating. More than likely bad judgement in engagement.
First off this statement
"Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon."
SAW ammo comes in boxes of 200. It takes 11 seconds to reload a box in a saw. It takes 3 seconds to replace a barrel. If he unloaded box after box without barrel change then it is user error.
How many soldiers were rotating ammo
How many were field stripping versus wiping
How many were versed on the 249 (not taught to everyone)
Too many variables to blame on guns that I know can handle more from experience.
01-02 Afghanistan
03-04 Iraq
05-06 Iraq
I have some field experience.. a ton with military weapons
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
"01-02 Afghanistan
03-04 Iraq
05-06 Iraq
I have some field experience.. a ton with military weapons"
First, thank you for your service.
Second, this is not the first time the m-16 (m-4. AR) platform has been called into question, for reliability questions in harsh operating conditions. Nor will it be the last.
I intentionally did not reply to this when I first saw it. Had to think it over a day or two. Realize this won't be a pc thing to say here, but given my druthers, I would rather have a Kalashnikov, M-14, ... even a Ruger "mini" 14, in desert or jungle combat conditions. Let the flaming begin.
"01-02 Afghanistan
03-04 Iraq
05-06 Iraq
I have some field experience.. a ton with military weapons"
First, thank you for your service.
Second, this is not the first time the m-16 (m-4. AR) platform has been called into question, for reliability questions in harsh operating conditions. Nor will it be the last.
I intentionally did not reply to this when I first saw it. Had to think it over a day or two. Realize this won't be a pc thing to say here, but given my druthers, I would rather have a Kalashnikov, M-14, ... even a Ruger "mini" 14, in desert or jungle combat conditions. Let the flaming begin.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
This is an issue of cyclic rate versus sustained rate of fire. The sustained rate of fire is really low, because when weapons fire lots of rounds for extended periods they melt. Melted weapons don't work so well. Doesn't matter what make or model, when you exceed the heat tolerances of the steel, bad things happen. AKs and M14s will melt just like an M16 or M249 will melt.
There are a lot of issues to look at here, but sub-standard weapons aren't one of them. Training, policy, etc directly affected what happened here.
Arty and air tend to make long engagements into short ones, in an ideal world. Again, let the flaming begin.
This is an issue of cyclic rate versus sustained rate of fire. The sustained rate of fire is really low, because when weapons fire lots of rounds for extended periods they melt. Melted weapons don't work so well. Doesn't matter what make or model, when you exceed the heat tolerances of the steel, bad things happen. AKs and M14s will melt just like an M16 or M249 will melt.
There are a lot of issues to look at here, but sub-standard weapons aren't one of them. Training, policy, etc directly affected what happened here.
Arty and air tend to make long engagements into short ones, in an ideal world. Again, let the flaming begin.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
This whole Fucked up deal is from a lack of
(1) Tactics
(2) Training
(3) Washington, not wanting to engage in a <span style="font-weight: bold">WAR </span> .
This whole Fucked up deal is from a lack of
(1) Tactics
(2) Training
(3) Washington, not wanting to engage in a <span style="font-weight: bold">WAR </span> .
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I'm weary of this report.
There are "the forces that be" that would love to replace the M4 with the SCAR or some other costly weapon system.
I really think that they need to teach the soldiers how to use their specific weapon more effectively.
From this article is sounds as if they would have been better off with Kalashnikovs by the descriptions of the firefight.
(Those overheat readily as well)
Imagine what a single concealed marksmen armed with an acurized M4 and some discipline could have accomplished on that day.
Now teach that soldier to be a trained spotter as well.
Let the enemy "fire for effect".
It'll make spotting them so much easier.
Do we want to encourage our forces to fight just like our enemy only in a defensive role?
That stacks the odds in their favor.
Why couldn't that soldier cool his barrel with some water?
Who routinely pops their head out of "a crows nest" to blindly fire at an enemy?
That sounds a little bogus.
The AR platform is a special weapon with special abilities and needs.
They need to cater to it's inherent abilities and stop trying to make it into an AK.
With the right upgrades and training this weapon would be devastating.
I'm weary of this report.
There are "the forces that be" that would love to replace the M4 with the SCAR or some other costly weapon system.
I really think that they need to teach the soldiers how to use their specific weapon more effectively.
From this article is sounds as if they would have been better off with Kalashnikovs by the descriptions of the firefight.
(Those overheat readily as well)
Imagine what a single concealed marksmen armed with an acurized M4 and some discipline could have accomplished on that day.
Now teach that soldier to be a trained spotter as well.
Let the enemy "fire for effect".
It'll make spotting them so much easier.
Do we want to encourage our forces to fight just like our enemy only in a defensive role?
That stacks the odds in their favor.
Why couldn't that soldier cool his barrel with some water?
Who routinely pops their head out of "a crows nest" to blindly fire at an enemy?
That sounds a little bogus.
The AR platform is a special weapon with special abilities and needs.
They need to cater to it's inherent abilities and stop trying to make it into an AK.
With the right upgrades and training this weapon would be devastating.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve </div></div>
Not likely, I've yet yo hear of anyone fixing the inherent problem of carrier tilt on piston-driven AR15/M16's. I was looking into designing a retrofit myself, but the crux of the problem is that the Stoner design is meant to be DI gas, and as such will wear like crazy with the force of a piston on the top of the BCG.
Perhaps dedicated uppers would do the trick, but I don't think a piston system would have solved anything in this scenario. Sounds more like heat abuse that metal just can't take...
-matt
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve </div></div>
Not likely, I've yet yo hear of anyone fixing the inherent problem of carrier tilt on piston-driven AR15/M16's. I was looking into designing a retrofit myself, but the crux of the problem is that the Stoner design is meant to be DI gas, and as such will wear like crazy with the force of a piston on the top of the BCG.
Perhaps dedicated uppers would do the trick, but I don't think a piston system would have solved anything in this scenario. Sounds more like heat abuse that metal just can't take...
-matt
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve </div></div>
That was my reaction too. I know back to back testing with the same weapon using both gas tube and piston showed the piston system to function without failures for 15,000 rounds, where the gas system would start to jam around 2000 rounds.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve </div></div>
That was my reaction too. I know back to back testing with the same weapon using both gas tube and piston showed the piston system to function without failures for 15,000 rounds, where the gas system would start to jam around 2000 rounds.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I agree with Blkside on alot of this. Obviously he is a guy that has "fired a few shots" (Rambo 3 Quote)
First question which is not answered, OK you have ten mag dumps on M4 as fast as you can load and fire the weapon. Assuming you aimed the first round at 25 yards or further, the next 29 rounds are misses unless you have a human wave attack and I have not heard of a human wave attack since Nam.
Two there is no weapon that you can treat like a fire hose hooked to a pumper hooked to a hydrant. They are not tested that way and there is no requirement that they be able to produce that kind of reliability. If their was that requirement needed Training and Doctrine Command would be all over it writing requirements documents and apparently have not done so.
Three there is no body count. Assuming you can aim with that amount of ammo expended the body count should fill several 6X6s.
Four as pointed out door kickers go looking for trouble every day and it is not their first rodeo. The REMFs as pointed out are a clusterbama waiting to happen.
I know the guy from Rock Island Engineering who went to Nam to inspect the "reports" coming in of bad weapons. The reason he was sent was he tested the M16 at Aberdeen and had "fired a hell of a lot of shots"
He told me he went into a big warehouse full of M16s and asked about their maintenance. "Oh yes sir, they are all cleaned and well cared for three bags full sir."
He walked down the aisles and started taking samples off each rack and went back and took them down in front of the colonel and they were inspected internally. They were dirty and internal parts were also rusty. Patches came out of bores black and rusty to boot.
Weapons maintenance is not taught correctly.
So there is no confusion here, WEAPONS MAINTENANCE IS NOT TAUGHT CORRECTLY! ! !
In the old days you kept your weapon in the barracks and it was yours till you graduated. It was inspected often and you caught hell if it was dirty. Now the troops are not trusted (except to die) and only time they handle their weapon is when the truck arrives from the weapons pool having been all cleaned up by retired E7s, E8s and E9s at weapons pool.
This sucks.
I remember I laid off going to Perry a few years and when I returned I saw a large number of black rifles being fired by civilians as well as greenbacks.
At the back of every ordnance vehicle were long lines (50+) shooters with weapons problems. I couldn't figure out what the problem was so I caught a van the next day before firing and I asked the plumbers what the failures were. Every last one said they are all dirty.
Thusly we have "experienced" shooters with thousands of rounds under their belts operating in a almost sterile atmosphere (as compared to over there and only shooting 66 rounds a day with only four rapid fire strings of ten rounds in 60 or 70 seconds and they are going down.
Not one guy in that line was a Marine Corps or Army MTU shooter. They were all civilians with no one to put a boot up their ass and make them clean.
I know for a absolute fact if it is clean when you start you can fire 1200 rounds a day without cleaning in 120 round intervals as I have done it time and again. Two mags 3 shot bursts followed by two mags semi auto.
Now granted the M16 if continually used as a hose will get the gas tube so hot that it goes limp and will shut down as the tube will misalign with the goose neck on the bolt carrier shutting the rodeo down.
Someone mentioned the great M14, well I hate to tell you guys but it was a disaster waiting to happen on full auto. In fact on the sustained full auto fire test at Springfield Armory it put a round through the side of the barrel about six inches in front of the chamber at round 273.
Yeah I know, no one ever heard of a problem with M14, that is because they did not pass out second gear switches to every kid on the block. Very few E2s were ever issued. They were issued in semi auto only. We did fine in WW2 with semi auto, Korea with semi auto but in Nam all they screamed was full auto.
Full auto means firepower. No firepower properly defined is more misses per minute.
Now I know there are those that will want to jump in and say that full auto is needed. In final defensive fire in a human wave with the bad guys at 15 yards, yeah but at 25 yards a M16 or any other infantry issued shoulder weapon, NO.
This is very easily proven and to prove it I let all the "exspurts" conduct their own hit probability test. Here is now it is done.
First you ask the "expurt" how far away the target is they are firing full auto at with shoulder fired infantry type weapons. You interview every one at one time and get them all on record as to the range. Average all the ranges and get everyone to agree as to the range. Lets say they say 75 yards is the average. No matter record it.
You build a target 8 ft. high and 8 feet wide and cover it with news print. Low center in the middle of the target place a E silhouette and go back 25 yards.
Have the "exspurt" place thirty rounds in a mag and placing a stop watch to his right front at eye level you tell him to fire every round as fast as the gun will put them down there and the object is to get all the hits he can in the shortest amount of time. Start a stopwatch as soon as the first round is fired and as soon as the mag is empty stop it and record the time. Get him to agree as to the time on the watch.
The exspurt will figure out quickly that this is a trick so he shoots short bursts which they have heard is the best way to shoot and is the most logical way to shoot this scenario so the hosemdowner will fire this way. After he has done the deed go down and score the hits and misses. Get him to count the hits and misses.
Note if the shooter is right handed the shot patterns will go towards 1:30. One hit center mass (if he is real good), second hit will be just over the shoulder, and third hit about two to three feet above that.
Change out the target and tell the guy to load thirty rounds and switches to SEMI AUTO and when he fires the first shot start the watch. We he gets to the same amount of time it took him to dump the entire first mag stop him and then go down score.
In testing I have witnessed the exspurts shooting they dump the first mag in 12 to 13 seconds.
Normally the semi auto will give three times the center hits with 1/2 the ammo. This test is conducted in the finest John Wayne tradition = standing with teeth gritted.
Now you ask your exspurt to define again how full auto is more effective in combat. Ask him how many people were killed by second and third shots. Some smart ass will say, there might be a guy 6"8" behind his left shoulder. Using this logic the third guy has to be nine feet tall. Ask them how many rag heads he has seen 6'8" and 9 feet tall.
I used to have my people screaming and crying "well they got full auto we need full auto because they have us outgunned". If such is true why weren't we wiped out early on in Nam? Last I heard we expended 39,000 rounds per kill in Nam and we all knew the body counts were inflated and is probably closer to 55,000 per kill.
I kind of figure it should be like 50,000 KIA for 55,000 rounds fired. This is based on the Fourth Great Truth, if you don't hit'em they don't die.
I knew a retd 06 who worked for the Army Material Systems Analysis Agency at Aberdeen PG. He told me thousand of troops and been used to conduct hit probability studies expending millions of rounds and he made the statement "If you ever see a test report that full auto is more effective, it is a rigged test."
Army MTU in Nam got so pissed at the full auto cry babies they told field units send them in their worst shot and he was taught how to shoot for a week. Then the unit was told to send in their best shot. They were paired at 50 yards on E targets and not one time did the EXSPURT out shoot the guy that was the worst shooter.
OK next there will be those that say you have to shoot them repeatedly to kill them with 5.56. At range this may well be true but at ranges under 150 yards not so. Take a gallon milk jug, fill it with water (humans are full of it) and shoot it at 25 yards and then report how many rounds it took to empty the jug. Same test at 50, 75, 100, 150.
How does this correlate? Well if you have proven you can't hit at 25 yards what good is all that ammo going to do shooting full auto at longer ranges? Answer: "well it keeps their heads down". True but you quickly run out of ammo, overheat your weapon and they come kill you whereas if you had aimed and squeezed and killed the prick..............
I was at West Point helping to conduct a Foreign Weapons Shoot for the Military Affairs Club. We laid out rifles from WW2 through Nam for them to shoot. 5.56, 7.62, 8MM, 303, 30.06.
I took my personal 03A3 up for the kids to shoot. It had a C stock, target rear sight, 17A front sight and a web sling. We zeroed each weapon prior to their arrival and I zeroed on a foot long piece of 2X4 laying about 200 yards out.
We each monitored about five weapons and walked back and forth showing them how to load them etc. I looked down and this one kid and taken the web sling off and dropped it on the ground and of course he was from the best training in the world which he knows is the standing position.
I done axed the boy "why did you take the sling off" to which he replies "I didn't need it." and I say "Are you sure you don't need a sling." The boy had the blankest stare you could imagine and finally he thought up a defense.."well I wasn't going to carry it anywhere."
I stated, "Ok let me get this straight, you are a senior here right?
"Yes Sir."
"And you are going to graduate in three months?."
"Yes Sir"
"And you don't know the other use for a sling?" Another blank stare.
I put the sling back on, got him into a sitting position and showed him how to build a position and explained to him how to align the sights and told him, "OK 300 yard line, knock it down."
To my horror this kid turns around, looks at me and states in an all knowing voice full of all knowing knowledge, "You can't hit a man at 300 yards." I looked at him, pointing down range and said, "DO IT".
Kid breaks the first shot and shazaam, the target dropped and it was a "Dog Target" to boot. His mouth dropped open and he had obviously done the impossible.
Next I said, "OK shoot him again." Second shot it went down, third, fourth, fifth, and I walked off after ten rounds.
The comments I heard from others were "Have you shot the Springfield? You can't miss with it." etc. I walked back to my rifle and there were about 500 empty cases laying on the ground. Thus it saw about 500 rounds in four hours. It was a hot puppy as the borescope now attets to but still shoots good.
After firing the major who was up in the tower was absolutely beside himself with glee. He said he had never had a class knock down so many targets at 300 yards in the six years he had been doing it. He was tickled no end.
What made the difference. There were three NRA rated competition highpower shooters giving them proper instruction.
I agree with Blkside on alot of this. Obviously he is a guy that has "fired a few shots" (Rambo 3 Quote)
First question which is not answered, OK you have ten mag dumps on M4 as fast as you can load and fire the weapon. Assuming you aimed the first round at 25 yards or further, the next 29 rounds are misses unless you have a human wave attack and I have not heard of a human wave attack since Nam.
Two there is no weapon that you can treat like a fire hose hooked to a pumper hooked to a hydrant. They are not tested that way and there is no requirement that they be able to produce that kind of reliability. If their was that requirement needed Training and Doctrine Command would be all over it writing requirements documents and apparently have not done so.
Three there is no body count. Assuming you can aim with that amount of ammo expended the body count should fill several 6X6s.
Four as pointed out door kickers go looking for trouble every day and it is not their first rodeo. The REMFs as pointed out are a clusterbama waiting to happen.
I know the guy from Rock Island Engineering who went to Nam to inspect the "reports" coming in of bad weapons. The reason he was sent was he tested the M16 at Aberdeen and had "fired a hell of a lot of shots"
He told me he went into a big warehouse full of M16s and asked about their maintenance. "Oh yes sir, they are all cleaned and well cared for three bags full sir."
He walked down the aisles and started taking samples off each rack and went back and took them down in front of the colonel and they were inspected internally. They were dirty and internal parts were also rusty. Patches came out of bores black and rusty to boot.
Weapons maintenance is not taught correctly.
So there is no confusion here, WEAPONS MAINTENANCE IS NOT TAUGHT CORRECTLY! ! !
In the old days you kept your weapon in the barracks and it was yours till you graduated. It was inspected often and you caught hell if it was dirty. Now the troops are not trusted (except to die) and only time they handle their weapon is when the truck arrives from the weapons pool having been all cleaned up by retired E7s, E8s and E9s at weapons pool.
This sucks.
I remember I laid off going to Perry a few years and when I returned I saw a large number of black rifles being fired by civilians as well as greenbacks.
At the back of every ordnance vehicle were long lines (50+) shooters with weapons problems. I couldn't figure out what the problem was so I caught a van the next day before firing and I asked the plumbers what the failures were. Every last one said they are all dirty.
Thusly we have "experienced" shooters with thousands of rounds under their belts operating in a almost sterile atmosphere (as compared to over there and only shooting 66 rounds a day with only four rapid fire strings of ten rounds in 60 or 70 seconds and they are going down.
Not one guy in that line was a Marine Corps or Army MTU shooter. They were all civilians with no one to put a boot up their ass and make them clean.
I know for a absolute fact if it is clean when you start you can fire 1200 rounds a day without cleaning in 120 round intervals as I have done it time and again. Two mags 3 shot bursts followed by two mags semi auto.
Now granted the M16 if continually used as a hose will get the gas tube so hot that it goes limp and will shut down as the tube will misalign with the goose neck on the bolt carrier shutting the rodeo down.
Someone mentioned the great M14, well I hate to tell you guys but it was a disaster waiting to happen on full auto. In fact on the sustained full auto fire test at Springfield Armory it put a round through the side of the barrel about six inches in front of the chamber at round 273.
Yeah I know, no one ever heard of a problem with M14, that is because they did not pass out second gear switches to every kid on the block. Very few E2s were ever issued. They were issued in semi auto only. We did fine in WW2 with semi auto, Korea with semi auto but in Nam all they screamed was full auto.
Full auto means firepower. No firepower properly defined is more misses per minute.
Now I know there are those that will want to jump in and say that full auto is needed. In final defensive fire in a human wave with the bad guys at 15 yards, yeah but at 25 yards a M16 or any other infantry issued shoulder weapon, NO.
This is very easily proven and to prove it I let all the "exspurts" conduct their own hit probability test. Here is now it is done.
First you ask the "expurt" how far away the target is they are firing full auto at with shoulder fired infantry type weapons. You interview every one at one time and get them all on record as to the range. Average all the ranges and get everyone to agree as to the range. Lets say they say 75 yards is the average. No matter record it.
You build a target 8 ft. high and 8 feet wide and cover it with news print. Low center in the middle of the target place a E silhouette and go back 25 yards.
Have the "exspurt" place thirty rounds in a mag and placing a stop watch to his right front at eye level you tell him to fire every round as fast as the gun will put them down there and the object is to get all the hits he can in the shortest amount of time. Start a stopwatch as soon as the first round is fired and as soon as the mag is empty stop it and record the time. Get him to agree as to the time on the watch.
The exspurt will figure out quickly that this is a trick so he shoots short bursts which they have heard is the best way to shoot and is the most logical way to shoot this scenario so the hosemdowner will fire this way. After he has done the deed go down and score the hits and misses. Get him to count the hits and misses.
Note if the shooter is right handed the shot patterns will go towards 1:30. One hit center mass (if he is real good), second hit will be just over the shoulder, and third hit about two to three feet above that.
Change out the target and tell the guy to load thirty rounds and switches to SEMI AUTO and when he fires the first shot start the watch. We he gets to the same amount of time it took him to dump the entire first mag stop him and then go down score.
In testing I have witnessed the exspurts shooting they dump the first mag in 12 to 13 seconds.
Normally the semi auto will give three times the center hits with 1/2 the ammo. This test is conducted in the finest John Wayne tradition = standing with teeth gritted.
Now you ask your exspurt to define again how full auto is more effective in combat. Ask him how many people were killed by second and third shots. Some smart ass will say, there might be a guy 6"8" behind his left shoulder. Using this logic the third guy has to be nine feet tall. Ask them how many rag heads he has seen 6'8" and 9 feet tall.
I used to have my people screaming and crying "well they got full auto we need full auto because they have us outgunned". If such is true why weren't we wiped out early on in Nam? Last I heard we expended 39,000 rounds per kill in Nam and we all knew the body counts were inflated and is probably closer to 55,000 per kill.
I kind of figure it should be like 50,000 KIA for 55,000 rounds fired. This is based on the Fourth Great Truth, if you don't hit'em they don't die.
I knew a retd 06 who worked for the Army Material Systems Analysis Agency at Aberdeen PG. He told me thousand of troops and been used to conduct hit probability studies expending millions of rounds and he made the statement "If you ever see a test report that full auto is more effective, it is a rigged test."
Army MTU in Nam got so pissed at the full auto cry babies they told field units send them in their worst shot and he was taught how to shoot for a week. Then the unit was told to send in their best shot. They were paired at 50 yards on E targets and not one time did the EXSPURT out shoot the guy that was the worst shooter.
OK next there will be those that say you have to shoot them repeatedly to kill them with 5.56. At range this may well be true but at ranges under 150 yards not so. Take a gallon milk jug, fill it with water (humans are full of it) and shoot it at 25 yards and then report how many rounds it took to empty the jug. Same test at 50, 75, 100, 150.
How does this correlate? Well if you have proven you can't hit at 25 yards what good is all that ammo going to do shooting full auto at longer ranges? Answer: "well it keeps their heads down". True but you quickly run out of ammo, overheat your weapon and they come kill you whereas if you had aimed and squeezed and killed the prick..............
I was at West Point helping to conduct a Foreign Weapons Shoot for the Military Affairs Club. We laid out rifles from WW2 through Nam for them to shoot. 5.56, 7.62, 8MM, 303, 30.06.
I took my personal 03A3 up for the kids to shoot. It had a C stock, target rear sight, 17A front sight and a web sling. We zeroed each weapon prior to their arrival and I zeroed on a foot long piece of 2X4 laying about 200 yards out.
We each monitored about five weapons and walked back and forth showing them how to load them etc. I looked down and this one kid and taken the web sling off and dropped it on the ground and of course he was from the best training in the world which he knows is the standing position.
I done axed the boy "why did you take the sling off" to which he replies "I didn't need it." and I say "Are you sure you don't need a sling." The boy had the blankest stare you could imagine and finally he thought up a defense.."well I wasn't going to carry it anywhere."
I stated, "Ok let me get this straight, you are a senior here right?
"Yes Sir."
"And you are going to graduate in three months?."
"Yes Sir"
"And you don't know the other use for a sling?" Another blank stare.
I put the sling back on, got him into a sitting position and showed him how to build a position and explained to him how to align the sights and told him, "OK 300 yard line, knock it down."
To my horror this kid turns around, looks at me and states in an all knowing voice full of all knowing knowledge, "You can't hit a man at 300 yards." I looked at him, pointing down range and said, "DO IT".
Kid breaks the first shot and shazaam, the target dropped and it was a "Dog Target" to boot. His mouth dropped open and he had obviously done the impossible.
Next I said, "OK shoot him again." Second shot it went down, third, fourth, fifth, and I walked off after ten rounds.
The comments I heard from others were "Have you shot the Springfield? You can't miss with it." etc. I walked back to my rifle and there were about 500 empty cases laying on the ground. Thus it saw about 500 rounds in four hours. It was a hot puppy as the borescope now attets to but still shoots good.
After firing the major who was up in the tower was absolutely beside himself with glee. He said he had never had a class knock down so many targets at 300 yards in the six years he had been doing it. He was tickled no end.
What made the difference. There were three NRA rated competition highpower shooters giving them proper instruction.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hummer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Normally the semi auto will give three times the hits with 1/3rd the ammo.
Now you ask your exspurt to define again how full auto is more effective in combat.
Last I heard we expended 39,000 rounds per kill in Nam and we all knew the body counts were inflated and is probably closer to 55,000 per kill.
</div></div>
Was thinking same.
Spray (and pray?) tactics surely were efficient against massive wave-attacks seen in WW1/2, but really- in what situation full-auto mag dumping really make any difference compared to aimed semi-auto shots?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hummer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Normally the semi auto will give three times the hits with 1/3rd the ammo.
Now you ask your exspurt to define again how full auto is more effective in combat.
Last I heard we expended 39,000 rounds per kill in Nam and we all knew the body counts were inflated and is probably closer to 55,000 per kill.
</div></div>
Was thinking same.
Spray (and pray?) tactics surely were efficient against massive wave-attacks seen in WW1/2, but really- in what situation full-auto mag dumping really make any difference compared to aimed semi-auto shots?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Spray (and pray?) tactics surely were efficient against massive wave-attacks seen in WW1/2, but really- in what situation full-auto mag dumping really make any difference compared to aimed semi-auto shots?
</div></div>
Full Auto is for breaking contact, or getting caught in or when doing a ambush. F/A Grazing fire helps at times but should only be from GPMG's not std boot sticks. Tactics run with the weapon at hand, not the other way around.
It was not 39K per it was almost 400K per.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Spray (and pray?) tactics surely were efficient against massive wave-attacks seen in WW1/2, but really- in what situation full-auto mag dumping really make any difference compared to aimed semi-auto shots?
</div></div>
Full Auto is for breaking contact, or getting caught in or when doing a ambush. F/A Grazing fire helps at times but should only be from GPMG's not std boot sticks. Tactics run with the weapon at hand, not the other way around.
It was not 39K per it was almost 400K per.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
It was not 39K per it was almost 400K per. [/quote]
Haven't seen that one but most likely closer to the real number and a sad state.
It was not 39K per it was almost 400K per. [/quote]
Haven't seen that one but most likely closer to the real number and a sad state.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Seen 2 squads of FNG's open up on one running across a paddy after he popped a 91/30 at the point man. He was still running while they were reloading,... right up to the point a single M59(7.62X51)round was sent his way. 400K was in print until 1979 as I recall. IIRC, That number included all ammo expended, Ground, Air, an Sea.
Seen 2 squads of FNG's open up on one running across a paddy after he popped a 91/30 at the point man. He was still running while they were reloading,... right up to the point a single M59(7.62X51)round was sent his way. 400K was in print until 1979 as I recall. IIRC, That number included all ammo expended, Ground, Air, an Sea.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Miniguns and machineguns firing from AC-47s, AC-119s, AC-130s, Cobras, ring-mount machineguns, and riverine boats kind of skews the numbers when you're counting small arms rounds fired in combat.
The numbers of hits per rounds fired by ground troops still sucks.
Miniguns and machineguns firing from AC-47s, AC-119s, AC-130s, Cobras, ring-mount machineguns, and riverine boats kind of skews the numbers when you're counting small arms rounds fired in combat.
The numbers of hits per rounds fired by ground troops still sucks.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
To the untrained soldier, full auto will give the shooter the illusion that maximum destruction is being wrought.
It all goes back to a lack of training and discipline in the art of getting rounds on target.
Full auto definitely has its time and place, but they need to be taught when and where that is.
More emphasis on marksmanship and how to build a stable firing position using various cover.
They don't even need to expend ammunition for the majority of this training and could accomplish a lot in a few hours a week.
Hell, this training would likely pay for itself the first time a soldier uses marksmanship to solve a problem that a JDAM would've been called in to do.
0.02
To the untrained soldier, full auto will give the shooter the illusion that maximum destruction is being wrought.
It all goes back to a lack of training and discipline in the art of getting rounds on target.
Full auto definitely has its time and place, but they need to be taught when and where that is.
More emphasis on marksmanship and how to build a stable firing position using various cover.
They don't even need to expend ammunition for the majority of this training and could accomplish a lot in a few hours a week.
Hell, this training would likely pay for itself the first time a soldier uses marksmanship to solve a problem that a JDAM would've been called in to do.
0.02
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Steve [/quote]
That was my reaction too. I know back to back testing with the same weapon using both gas tube and piston showed the piston system to function without failures for 15,000 rounds, where the gas system would start to jam around 2000 rounds. [/quote]
Out of curiousity could you define exactly what the jam consisted of? Jams are referred to as stoppages in the test business and we had to identity the type such as:
Fail to rise
Fail to strip
Fail to feed
Fail to lock mag
Fail to chamber
Fail Bolt to lock
Fail to fire.
Fail to open
Fail to extract
Fail to eject
Bolt over base
Bolt under base
Double feed
Tripple feed
they were further classified as:
stoppage under 10 seconds
stoppage over 10 seconds
stoppage requiring armorer repair.
was it operator problem, mag problem, part problem(broken extractor,ejector problem etc or weapon.
When firing large numbers of rounds it is a good idea to number the mags and record the mag number for each stoppage thusly if mag 3 has five or six stoppages and the others run clean then you know you have a mag problem and not a weapon problem. Also record the round number in the magazine when the stoppage occurred.
Steve [/quote]
That was my reaction too. I know back to back testing with the same weapon using both gas tube and piston showed the piston system to function without failures for 15,000 rounds, where the gas system would start to jam around 2000 rounds. [/quote]
Out of curiousity could you define exactly what the jam consisted of? Jams are referred to as stoppages in the test business and we had to identity the type such as:
Fail to rise
Fail to strip
Fail to feed
Fail to lock mag
Fail to chamber
Fail Bolt to lock
Fail to fire.
Fail to open
Fail to extract
Fail to eject
Bolt over base
Bolt under base
Double feed
Tripple feed
they were further classified as:
stoppage under 10 seconds
stoppage over 10 seconds
stoppage requiring armorer repair.
was it operator problem, mag problem, part problem(broken extractor,ejector problem etc or weapon.
When firing large numbers of rounds it is a good idea to number the mags and record the mag number for each stoppage thusly if mag 3 has five or six stoppages and the others run clean then you know you have a mag problem and not a weapon problem. Also record the round number in the magazine when the stoppage occurred.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Halvis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"01-02 Afghanistan
03-04 Iraq
05-06 Iraq
I have some field experience.. a ton with military weapons"
First, thank you for your service.
Second, this is not the first time the m-16 (m-4. AR) platform has been called into question, for reliability questions in harsh operating conditions. Nor will it be the last.
I intentionally did not reply to this when I first saw it. Had to think it over a day or two. Realize this won't be a pc thing to say here, but given my druthers, I would rather have a Kalashnikov, M-14, ... even a Ruger "mini" 14, in desert or jungle combat conditions. Let the flaming begin. </div></div>
Did you just put the mini 14 in the same running with the M16/AR platform? Are you retarded(that's not a question)! State your experience (military/LE) otherwise keep your BS statements to yourself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Halvis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"01-02 Afghanistan
03-04 Iraq
05-06 Iraq
I have some field experience.. a ton with military weapons"
First, thank you for your service.
Second, this is not the first time the m-16 (m-4. AR) platform has been called into question, for reliability questions in harsh operating conditions. Nor will it be the last.
I intentionally did not reply to this when I first saw it. Had to think it over a day or two. Realize this won't be a pc thing to say here, but given my druthers, I would rather have a Kalashnikov, M-14, ... even a Ruger "mini" 14, in desert or jungle combat conditions. Let the flaming begin. </div></div>
Did you just put the mini 14 in the same running with the M16/AR platform? Are you retarded(that's not a question)! State your experience (military/LE) otherwise keep your BS statements to yourself.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hummer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know the guy from Rock Island Engineering who went to Nam to inspect the "reports" coming in of bad weapons. The reason he was sent was he tested the M16 at Aberdeen and had "fired a hell of a lot of shots"
He told me he went into a big warehouse full of M16s and asked about their maintenance. "Oh yes sir, they are all cleaned and well cared for three bags full sir."
He walked down the aisles and started taking samples off each rack and went back and took them down in front of the colonel and they were inspected internally. They were dirty and internal parts were also rusty. Patches came out of bores black and rusty to boot.
Weapons maintenance is not taught correctly.
So there is no confusion here, WEAPONS MAINTENANCE IS NOT TAUGHT CORRECTLY! ! ! </div></div>
Just so you know, when that POS was first fielded to the Army, "They Said" it never needed cleaning, as it was self cleaning, and that is fact. Cleaning kits were never issued,...an a 30cal rod won't fit a 223 bore,..but a coat hanger will. Then out came the "Comic Book" with Kits, on how to clean,....then came the chrome bore ect. Here we are talking about a POS thats been improved so much it's run full circle, Training, Tactics, but the most important thing most never understood,.....Colt,...Money,...and those that take, an make policy. Many have a bad taste for the 16 do to back when, and yes many grabbed AK's for a Very Good Reason, they wanted something that went bang on the field of battle. The M14 was never fully retired for a reason and those that Carried,... Dragged,... or ever Jumped with one, never gave pause for the weapon they were issued. I know I'm a die hard old fart, but the M14 Family took me many places, an brought me home everytime. I've never been anywhere I felt out/over/under Gunned while carrying one,......
Rant over
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hummer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know the guy from Rock Island Engineering who went to Nam to inspect the "reports" coming in of bad weapons. The reason he was sent was he tested the M16 at Aberdeen and had "fired a hell of a lot of shots"
He told me he went into a big warehouse full of M16s and asked about their maintenance. "Oh yes sir, they are all cleaned and well cared for three bags full sir."
He walked down the aisles and started taking samples off each rack and went back and took them down in front of the colonel and they were inspected internally. They were dirty and internal parts were also rusty. Patches came out of bores black and rusty to boot.
Weapons maintenance is not taught correctly.
So there is no confusion here, WEAPONS MAINTENANCE IS NOT TAUGHT CORRECTLY! ! ! </div></div>
Just so you know, when that POS was first fielded to the Army, "They Said" it never needed cleaning, as it was self cleaning, and that is fact. Cleaning kits were never issued,...an a 30cal rod won't fit a 223 bore,..but a coat hanger will. Then out came the "Comic Book" with Kits, on how to clean,....then came the chrome bore ect. Here we are talking about a POS thats been improved so much it's run full circle, Training, Tactics, but the most important thing most never understood,.....Colt,...Money,...and those that take, an make policy. Many have a bad taste for the 16 do to back when, and yes many grabbed AK's for a Very Good Reason, they wanted something that went bang on the field of battle. The M14 was never fully retired for a reason and those that Carried,... Dragged,... or ever Jumped with one, never gave pause for the weapon they were issued. I know I'm a die hard old fart, but the M14 Family took me many places, an brought me home everytime. I've never been anywhere I felt out/over/under Gunned while carrying one,......
Rant over
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefig
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monteboy84</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve </div></div>
Not likely, I've yet yo hear of anyone fixing the inherent problem of carrier tilt on piston-driven AR15/M16's. I was looking into designing a retrofit myself, but the crux of the problem is that the Stoner design is meant to be DI gas, and as such will wear like crazy with the force of a piston on the top of the BCG.
Perhaps dedicated uppers would do the trick, but I don't think a piston system would have solved anything in this scenario. Sounds more like heat abuse that metal just can't take...
-matt </div></div>
The carrier tilt issue has been minimized by the 1-piece carriers with the built in pads. My LMT Piston upper still had carrier tilt, but it was very minimal. I have put almost 5k through mine and if given a choice I wouldn't go back to regular DI. There is anabsolute fix to carrier tilt that I was going to get if the carrier tilt on mine got worse, but it has stabilized so I didn't bother. The fix is a buffer that has a male end that lines up with the carrier. Simple and easy.
In general, I think piston weapons are better for combat, especially in the sandy environments. I've shot close to 1k out of my piston AR and it just took a few seconds to wipe it down.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monteboy84</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder if a piston gas system installed on the M4'S would of helped.???
Steve </div></div>
Not likely, I've yet yo hear of anyone fixing the inherent problem of carrier tilt on piston-driven AR15/M16's. I was looking into designing a retrofit myself, but the crux of the problem is that the Stoner design is meant to be DI gas, and as such will wear like crazy with the force of a piston on the top of the BCG.
Perhaps dedicated uppers would do the trick, but I don't think a piston system would have solved anything in this scenario. Sounds more like heat abuse that metal just can't take...
-matt </div></div>
The carrier tilt issue has been minimized by the 1-piece carriers with the built in pads. My LMT Piston upper still had carrier tilt, but it was very minimal. I have put almost 5k through mine and if given a choice I wouldn't go back to regular DI. There is anabsolute fix to carrier tilt that I was going to get if the carrier tilt on mine got worse, but it has stabilized so I didn't bother. The fix is a buffer that has a male end that lines up with the carrier. Simple and easy.
In general, I think piston weapons are better for combat, especially in the sandy environments. I've shot close to 1k out of my piston AR and it just took a few seconds to wipe it down.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefig
Yes there were bad rifles given guys for sure in the early days. I think there has been over 500 improvements to it and it is hands down better than original.
As you military types know there is a regulation that allows you to do something another regulation says you cannot do.
Same with M4. If you can find a M16 bipod and attach it to the barrel where the M203 hooks on you will have a absolute winner in full auto.
I fired ten three shot bursts at 50 yards prone with bipod and supported on rear by fist. If I remember correctly I shot a 4 1/2" for those ten 3-shot bursts. I called Rock Island and told them and they wanted a pic of the target. I sent them the target and last I heard they had the target hanging in engineering.
The M4 with a bipod will make you very dangerous at long range with short bursts. I tell every one of my buddies going over there to get a M16 bipod and take it with them. It is a pain to carry but for laying down accurate fire it cannot be beat. Having a bipod out and in place and a good position is the only time I would ever use full auto.
There was a gunner at Aberdeen who put 156 rounds in a E silhouette in 60 seconds shooting semi auto with a bipod at 100 yards. He was using 20 round mags to boot.
Just think what the guys could do with this kind of firepower/accuracy in the referenced firefight. But alas the bipod got dumped a thousand years ago.
If one of them can't be found get a Harris 6-9" with canting ability and you are good to go.
Yes there were bad rifles given guys for sure in the early days. I think there has been over 500 improvements to it and it is hands down better than original.
As you military types know there is a regulation that allows you to do something another regulation says you cannot do.
Same with M4. If you can find a M16 bipod and attach it to the barrel where the M203 hooks on you will have a absolute winner in full auto.
I fired ten three shot bursts at 50 yards prone with bipod and supported on rear by fist. If I remember correctly I shot a 4 1/2" for those ten 3-shot bursts. I called Rock Island and told them and they wanted a pic of the target. I sent them the target and last I heard they had the target hanging in engineering.
The M4 with a bipod will make you very dangerous at long range with short bursts. I tell every one of my buddies going over there to get a M16 bipod and take it with them. It is a pain to carry but for laying down accurate fire it cannot be beat. Having a bipod out and in place and a good position is the only time I would ever use full auto.
There was a gunner at Aberdeen who put 156 rounds in a E silhouette in 60 seconds shooting semi auto with a bipod at 100 yards. He was using 20 round mags to boot.
Just think what the guys could do with this kind of firepower/accuracy in the referenced firefight. But alas the bipod got dumped a thousand years ago.
If one of them can't be found get a Harris 6-9" with canting ability and you are good to go.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefig
"The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot."
Anybody have any experience with white hot barrels???
I'm thinking some of this has to do with justifying increased budgets. But I agree that the M14 might as well be brought back en masse. If you're gonna be kicking down doors that's one thing, but otherwise I see no purpose for assault rifles. Of course, actual marksmanship would require more training and discipline and I'm thinking that's the reason they phased it out in the first place.
But with the privatization trends contractors will overtake soldiers any day now, so maybe all this is a moot point.
"The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot."
Anybody have any experience with white hot barrels???
I'm thinking some of this has to do with justifying increased budgets. But I agree that the M14 might as well be brought back en masse. If you're gonna be kicking down doors that's one thing, but otherwise I see no purpose for assault rifles. Of course, actual marksmanship would require more training and discipline and I'm thinking that's the reason they phased it out in the first place.
But with the privatization trends contractors will overtake soldiers any day now, so maybe all this is a moot point.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The numbers of hits per rounds fired by ground troops still sucks. </div></div>
I hate to say it but, sometimes I think thats by design,... Ain't never going to happen but, I'd like to see those that make policy an dole bucks, bootup an take point, or just saddle up with a stick.
Training funds might be a little more forth coming.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The numbers of hits per rounds fired by ground troops still sucks. </div></div>
I hate to say it but, sometimes I think thats by design,... Ain't never going to happen but, I'd like to see those that make policy an dole bucks, bootup an take point, or just saddle up with a stick.
Training funds might be a little more forth coming.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
USMC 0331 3/7 kilo 1999/2003
I had a problem with all our weapons at some point and time. I had a sear stick on a MK19 in Bagdad and send rounds all over a residential area . We had one of those dum shit reporters with us good thing he was almost a human .Bad timing and a bad day is what I would report.
Semper Fi!
USMC 0331 3/7 kilo 1999/2003
I had a problem with all our weapons at some point and time. I had a sear stick on a MK19 in Bagdad and send rounds all over a residential area . We had one of those dum shit reporters with us good thing he was almost a human .Bad timing and a bad day is what I would report.
Semper Fi!
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
If you don't know the M4 is a less reliable weapon than other choices, you've been asleep for a while. The standard M16 is an awesome reliable weapon, but there comes a point where the barrel becomes too short for a direct impingement weapon...the M4 is at that point.
If you don't know the M4 is a less reliable weapon than other choices, you've been asleep for a while. The standard M16 is an awesome reliable weapon, but there comes a point where the barrel becomes too short for a direct impingement weapon...the M4 is at that point.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I'm not a fan of the AR platform, or several other weapons amongst other things that our troops are issued/saddled with.
And I've been behind the trigger when the heat's on, so I know it's easy to go thru a bit more ammo than were it a static training situation. But how much of some of the issues relate to fire discipline, or lack there of. I mean, unless you're on an open plain & somehow 10k Zulus have crept in to 200m & surprised you, the round count per kill seems WAY high. And yeah, I know what supressive fire is, & also pop up targets only in view for a few seconds.
Bottom line, and yeah it may be tough to admit, but I'm curious as to how many of these bad situations might have gone better given real marksmanship, fire discipline, & small unit tactics training?
Throw flames if you like, but for example at Bella Wood in WWI the Marines were dropping Germans at 700yds like gophers in a dog town. And they were using stock Springfields with iron sights. To such effect that German soldiers sent correspondence home complaining about as much.
Gives one pause for thought anyway. And there are plenty of other, even more extreme examples.
I'm not criticizing our men & women's actions, I TRULY appreciate them. Heck, I insist on picking up the tab for whatever it may be; dinner or the dry cleaners when I'm out in town & see active duty folks, in uniform or out. Even if I know they take home more per month than I do.
Some of what I ask is based on the fact that by age 8, I knew more about shooting than I ever learned on active duty. And I had access to pretty much any weapons I wanted, small arms wise. And yeah, it torques me that we have to bring in CMP guys, & similar to train DM's as there isn't a cadre of instructors big enough with enough knowledge working for Uncle Sam to school them.
Thoughts, comments, etc.?
I'm not a fan of the AR platform, or several other weapons amongst other things that our troops are issued/saddled with.
And I've been behind the trigger when the heat's on, so I know it's easy to go thru a bit more ammo than were it a static training situation. But how much of some of the issues relate to fire discipline, or lack there of. I mean, unless you're on an open plain & somehow 10k Zulus have crept in to 200m & surprised you, the round count per kill seems WAY high. And yeah, I know what supressive fire is, & also pop up targets only in view for a few seconds.
Bottom line, and yeah it may be tough to admit, but I'm curious as to how many of these bad situations might have gone better given real marksmanship, fire discipline, & small unit tactics training?
Throw flames if you like, but for example at Bella Wood in WWI the Marines were dropping Germans at 700yds like gophers in a dog town. And they were using stock Springfields with iron sights. To such effect that German soldiers sent correspondence home complaining about as much.
Gives one pause for thought anyway. And there are plenty of other, even more extreme examples.
I'm not criticizing our men & women's actions, I TRULY appreciate them. Heck, I insist on picking up the tab for whatever it may be; dinner or the dry cleaners when I'm out in town & see active duty folks, in uniform or out. Even if I know they take home more per month than I do.
Some of what I ask is based on the fact that by age 8, I knew more about shooting than I ever learned on active duty. And I had access to pretty much any weapons I wanted, small arms wise. And yeah, it torques me that we have to bring in CMP guys, & similar to train DM's as there isn't a cadre of instructors big enough with enough knowledge working for Uncle Sam to school them.
Thoughts, comments, etc.?
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Hey guys since I am currently pulling a tour in Afcrapastan I can tell you the major problem my men and I run into is the (moon dust).
I thought the sand in Iraq was bad. “Man if you could see this stuff” ,the sand is like coco powder fine as hell and sticks to everything.I have my CSE team, vehicle commanders make their men do maintains on their M4 and magazines every day and prior to every mission.
We keep caned air for blowing out the crew served when we can.I was stopped in the chow hall the other day, we were asked did we just arrive in country.
I was polite and replied to the Gunny no we have been on the ground for a few months now.
What made you ask that Gunny.
The reply I received from the Gunny was dam your weapons are so clean. I can’t believe you just got back off the road on a mission and your gear is that clean , of course my men chimed in on how I eat up their free time BLA BLA BLA , but thank god we have had no major weapons malfunction yet.
If you can keep up with the dirt and grime and clean your stuff daily it not so bad on gear and optics, but constantly we have to touch up our M4 and M9 daily.
You all take care and thanks for letting me chime in my two cents.
V/R TREE FROG
Hey guys since I am currently pulling a tour in Afcrapastan I can tell you the major problem my men and I run into is the (moon dust).
I thought the sand in Iraq was bad. “Man if you could see this stuff” ,the sand is like coco powder fine as hell and sticks to everything.I have my CSE team, vehicle commanders make their men do maintains on their M4 and magazines every day and prior to every mission.
We keep caned air for blowing out the crew served when we can.I was stopped in the chow hall the other day, we were asked did we just arrive in country.
I was polite and replied to the Gunny no we have been on the ground for a few months now.
What made you ask that Gunny.
The reply I received from the Gunny was dam your weapons are so clean. I can’t believe you just got back off the road on a mission and your gear is that clean , of course my men chimed in on how I eat up their free time BLA BLA BLA , but thank god we have had no major weapons malfunction yet.
If you can keep up with the dirt and grime and clean your stuff daily it not so bad on gear and optics, but constantly we have to touch up our M4 and M9 daily.
You all take care and thanks for letting me chime in my two cents.
V/R TREE FROG
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Grounds Keeper and Tree Frog are dead on accurate with those posts.
Tree Frog obviously recognizes the enemy, the DUST. What he didn't say was his people are taping the muzzles with gun tape and trying to protect the actions which is damn hard to do in that environment.
If anyone wants a cheap dust test take a cup full of the old ladie's flour and sprinkle all in your action. Then imagine the flour is an abrasive as well.
The M14 will go down in this atmosphere and quicker as this dust will penetrate places you wouldn't believe. I have seen taped muzzles on them in dust test with a chambered round and after dust is stopped, charging handle pulled to rear, round comes out and DUST FALLS OUT OF THE BORE that was entrapped IN FRONT OF THE LOADED ROUND! ! !
At least the AR has a cover which helps alot.
The requirements for the M4 and M16A2 are basically identical. 6000 rounds. The new sight systems on the ARs are a vast improvement for target acquisition.
Just remembered another scenario. The cook off test is fired at the rate of 500 rounds in 500 seconds and is fired semi auto. There is no problem getting to that point with AR platform.
Barrel temp at that fire rate hits about 410 deg F. Cookoff will happen about 8 seconds later.
There is not a shooter alive that can aim and fire at multiple targets continously for that fire rate without a bipod thusly dumping rounds down range at a faster rate (full auto) is not going to increase hits.
No I am not buying white hot barrels either. An AR with continious mag dumps will have the gas tube go limp and misalign with goose neck in bolt carrier shutting it down with a partially chambered round.
An M14 will put a bullet through side of barrel at around 273 rounds so that is not a option.
I worked with a guy who was a M60 gunner at Khe Sahn and they hooked up a continous belt of ammo and laid it in duffle bag. Just before the party started they opened the feed cover and poured motor oil all through the action and sat down on the trigger. Others were continously squirting LSA in the openings and it kept going. When it stopped the gun kept on firing till they broke the belt. The barrel sagged and gun was wrecked.
Experienced gunners were known to use motor oil as it keeps friction down and washes out (for lack of better term) bad stuff but you got a mess later.
I told the M60 Engineer in Charge that story while I was with the Army Sm Cal Lab and he said the M60 normally has a bolt lock up in the barrel socket before it gets to that point. A couple years ago there was a clip floating around the internet of a 1200 round burst with a revamped M60. Barrel did not turn white on that one.
I have seen a 500 round burst on another LMG and barrel did not even turn red. The gunners were shooting prone, bipod and I watched the gunner's face on both the clip and the one I witnessed and the head is shaking so fast you can tell they were just trying to hold on till it was over.
Those that have shot a M60 from bipod know what that sight picture or lack there of looks like.
Grounds Keeper and Tree Frog are dead on accurate with those posts.
Tree Frog obviously recognizes the enemy, the DUST. What he didn't say was his people are taping the muzzles with gun tape and trying to protect the actions which is damn hard to do in that environment.
If anyone wants a cheap dust test take a cup full of the old ladie's flour and sprinkle all in your action. Then imagine the flour is an abrasive as well.
The M14 will go down in this atmosphere and quicker as this dust will penetrate places you wouldn't believe. I have seen taped muzzles on them in dust test with a chambered round and after dust is stopped, charging handle pulled to rear, round comes out and DUST FALLS OUT OF THE BORE that was entrapped IN FRONT OF THE LOADED ROUND! ! !
At least the AR has a cover which helps alot.
The requirements for the M4 and M16A2 are basically identical. 6000 rounds. The new sight systems on the ARs are a vast improvement for target acquisition.
Just remembered another scenario. The cook off test is fired at the rate of 500 rounds in 500 seconds and is fired semi auto. There is no problem getting to that point with AR platform.
Barrel temp at that fire rate hits about 410 deg F. Cookoff will happen about 8 seconds later.
There is not a shooter alive that can aim and fire at multiple targets continously for that fire rate without a bipod thusly dumping rounds down range at a faster rate (full auto) is not going to increase hits.
No I am not buying white hot barrels either. An AR with continious mag dumps will have the gas tube go limp and misalign with goose neck in bolt carrier shutting it down with a partially chambered round.
An M14 will put a bullet through side of barrel at around 273 rounds so that is not a option.
I worked with a guy who was a M60 gunner at Khe Sahn and they hooked up a continous belt of ammo and laid it in duffle bag. Just before the party started they opened the feed cover and poured motor oil all through the action and sat down on the trigger. Others were continously squirting LSA in the openings and it kept going. When it stopped the gun kept on firing till they broke the belt. The barrel sagged and gun was wrecked.
Experienced gunners were known to use motor oil as it keeps friction down and washes out (for lack of better term) bad stuff but you got a mess later.
I told the M60 Engineer in Charge that story while I was with the Army Sm Cal Lab and he said the M60 normally has a bolt lock up in the barrel socket before it gets to that point. A couple years ago there was a clip floating around the internet of a 1200 round burst with a revamped M60. Barrel did not turn white on that one.
I have seen a 500 round burst on another LMG and barrel did not even turn red. The gunners were shooting prone, bipod and I watched the gunner's face on both the clip and the one I witnessed and the head is shaking so fast you can tell they were just trying to hold on till it was over.
Those that have shot a M60 from bipod know what that sight picture or lack there of looks like.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hummer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An M14 will put a bullet through side of barrel at around 273 rounds so that is not a option.</div></div>
That won't hold water, with me. I've ran 3 MG34 drums (100rd)with M14 feed towers back to back all the happened was the flash hider was orange an 4" of the rifleing was gone.
My logon was given to me in 1965 by my Co. and that M14e2 ran a hell of alot more than that on F/A as they were delinking an maging pig food for me, the pig had died from a 54R into the feed tray.
I've ran M14's in some form of trim, in many shit holes and never had the issues you claim. The only time I almost had an issue, it was 100% my dumn ass's fault. Tap, Jab, Rack, then Slam if needed, works everytime.
I'm no expert on the M14, far from it, but some of your claims are way different than the iron I've owned or been issued.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hummer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An M14 will put a bullet through side of barrel at around 273 rounds so that is not a option.</div></div>
That won't hold water, with me. I've ran 3 MG34 drums (100rd)with M14 feed towers back to back all the happened was the flash hider was orange an 4" of the rifleing was gone.
My logon was given to me in 1965 by my Co. and that M14e2 ran a hell of alot more than that on F/A as they were delinking an maging pig food for me, the pig had died from a 54R into the feed tray.
I've ran M14's in some form of trim, in many shit holes and never had the issues you claim. The only time I almost had an issue, it was 100% my dumn ass's fault. Tap, Jab, Rack, then Slam if needed, works everytime.
I'm no expert on the M14, far from it, but some of your claims are way different than the iron I've owned or been issued.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I wish you had filmed that. I would love to see three 100 round bursts from a M14. Did the stock catch fire?
If I remember at SA the stock also caught fire.
Was it a gov't spec barrel or a after market match type barrel?
I wish you had filmed that. I would love to see three 100 round bursts from a M14. Did the stock catch fire?
If I remember at SA the stock also caught fire.
Was it a gov't spec barrel or a after market match type barrel?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Yes, the stock was on fire after the end of the 2nd drum, at the discharge hole, front barrel band an handguard. Put it out with sand, slammed in the third drum and she ran it no problem. Papered NFA H&R M14e2 std chrome barrel.
The other one was on fire as well at the same points, but do to other pressing matters right then, I did not stop to put it out until everything was over. If one opens the stock discharge hole to 3/4" it will not flame near as fast. Also if the front E2 grip is removed and more holes are drilled into the bottom it will run 5x longer. Never run a E2 with the solid handguard(except in cold weather), use the slotted as the heat waves won't effect the irons and she cools much better. In cold weather run the solid as I've seen them get ice built up to the point it jams the op rod.
Yes, the stock was on fire after the end of the 2nd drum, at the discharge hole, front barrel band an handguard. Put it out with sand, slammed in the third drum and she ran it no problem. Papered NFA H&R M14e2 std chrome barrel.
The other one was on fire as well at the same points, but do to other pressing matters right then, I did not stop to put it out until everything was over. If one opens the stock discharge hole to 3/4" it will not flame near as fast. Also if the front E2 grip is removed and more holes are drilled into the bottom it will run 5x longer. Never run a E2 with the solid handguard(except in cold weather), use the slotted as the heat waves won't effect the irons and she cools much better. In cold weather run the solid as I've seen them get ice built up to the point it jams the op rod.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
shoot it at 1000 inches (83.3ft) on paper and tell me what the bullet holes look like. five shots will do it.
shoot it at 1000 inches (83.3ft) on paper and tell me what the bullet holes look like. five shots will do it.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
That test with MG34 durms was done many barrels ago, I'm guessing circa 1979-80
That test with MG34 durms was done many barrels ago, I'm guessing circa 1979-80
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
interesting, I never heard of that conversion before today.
interesting, I never heard of that conversion before today.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Been playing with the M14 Family from 1964 todate. The NFA crowd is always trying things on different weapons. Rack guns are just that.
Beta is doing a 7.62x51 100rd drum, if they ever get it to run in auto it well be out, as well.
Been playing with the M14 Family from 1964 todate. The NFA crowd is always trying things on different weapons. Rack guns are just that.
Beta is doing a 7.62x51 100rd drum, if they ever get it to run in auto it well be out, as well.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Served in 'Nam, last of 1966, most of 1967. Carried M-14, served alongside troops armed with M-16.
Was a Marine Engineer Electrician, which sounds pretty REMF. Early part of our deployment it was, but eventually, our mission became redundant. You can only set so many poles, run so much wire, net up so many compounds, build so many generator compounds. Then you go Repl/TDY. My usual assignment was on perimeter guard, Dong Ha, Northern Perimeter. This assignment included a lot of night and day work outside the wire.
I called a favor and got a selector installed.
Every damned thing I've read here about the futility of attempting to use the M-14 full auto is gospel. I used it a few times to get a feeling, said 'Yep, it's a dilly', and turned it off thereafter. Can't say where the subsequent shots went, we didn't use much paper to shoot at, 1:30 sounds about right.
Then, in the 1990's, I acquired a new 'loaded' SA M1A.
Baby'd the trigger occasionally, got it to double on paper. Yep, 1:30, about 6-8MOA out of the X.
For applications that actually require hits on target, full auto is best left to heavier weapons. IMHO.
Applications like fire and maneuver, where massed bulk supporting fire is needed to force opfor defenders to stay down; full auto, in short bursts, multiple shooters, actually makes sense.
Otherwise...
Greg
Served in 'Nam, last of 1966, most of 1967. Carried M-14, served alongside troops armed with M-16.
Was a Marine Engineer Electrician, which sounds pretty REMF. Early part of our deployment it was, but eventually, our mission became redundant. You can only set so many poles, run so much wire, net up so many compounds, build so many generator compounds. Then you go Repl/TDY. My usual assignment was on perimeter guard, Dong Ha, Northern Perimeter. This assignment included a lot of night and day work outside the wire.
I called a favor and got a selector installed.
Every damned thing I've read here about the futility of attempting to use the M-14 full auto is gospel. I used it a few times to get a feeling, said 'Yep, it's a dilly', and turned it off thereafter. Can't say where the subsequent shots went, we didn't use much paper to shoot at, 1:30 sounds about right.
Then, in the 1990's, I acquired a new 'loaded' SA M1A.
Baby'd the trigger occasionally, got it to double on paper. Yep, 1:30, about 6-8MOA out of the X.
For applications that actually require hits on target, full auto is best left to heavier weapons. IMHO.
Applications like fire and maneuver, where massed bulk supporting fire is needed to force opfor defenders to stay down; full auto, in short bursts, multiple shooters, actually makes sense.
Otherwise...
Greg
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
The M14e2 is a different stick but even with it, training is the key. Next time you have the chance, take a std M14 an twist the front sight to 1100 hrs and hold it there while firing, big difference. The muzzle stablizer, straight line pistol grip stock, bipod, all make a bigger difference with the E2.
Go to Knob Creek and shoot one, a M60 it ain't, but it ain't 23 lb empty either.
The M14e2 is a different stick but even with it, training is the key. Next time you have the chance, take a std M14 an twist the front sight to 1100 hrs and hold it there while firing, big difference. The muzzle stablizer, straight line pistol grip stock, bipod, all make a bigger difference with the E2.
Go to Knob Creek and shoot one, a M60 it ain't, but it ain't 23 lb empty either.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Works great from the crotch as well,...
No not me, I'm a little older, with Gray hair.
Edit to be picky,...Stock wrong on shoulder,... Body not set correctly, sling not ajusted correctly, for front hand grip,..but all in all barrel is still flat and I count 4 rds fired, 3 spent in the air an 1 extracting,....I know of the shooter, don't believe he was ever schooled, not a bad job at all, for an untrained. IIRC thats a Smith, built stick. The last M14's built for the Navy circa 80's. Ever wonder why the Navy wanted them,.....
Works great from the crotch as well,...
No not me, I'm a little older, with Gray hair.
Edit to be picky,...Stock wrong on shoulder,... Body not set correctly, sling not ajusted correctly, for front hand grip,..but all in all barrel is still flat and I count 4 rds fired, 3 spent in the air an 1 extracting,....I know of the shooter, don't believe he was ever schooled, not a bad job at all, for an untrained. IIRC thats a Smith, built stick. The last M14's built for the Navy circa 80's. Ever wonder why the Navy wanted them,.....
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
I'd like to see actual footage of "white hot" barrels. Somehow, to me it seems that were the barrels to get that hot, all sorts of nasty things would happen. But I have trouble seeing hot to get them half way to that temp. The heat coming thru the handguards would fry you, as well as melt the handguards. Ditto on destroying the reciever, gas tube, etc. & the barrel would look like a piece of spagetti that's been boiled for 15 min.
Things would jam up a long time prior to getting that hot from what I know of weapons, as well as metalurgy. If the operator could hang onto something at that temp. that is. Although the point's moot.
One item which is FACT is that marksmanship has been on the decline since WW I. Even General Patton commented, & has been quoted in saying that marksmanship is not important.
And the core of said statement's of course a load of crap. Surely colors my opinion of the man, amongst other things he did, illegally & amorally.
That said, & I use this example a fair bit. During the Civil War, Confederate sharpshooters were engaging targets, particularly Union officers at 1000yds & BEYOND with Whitworth black powder rifles. With at best low powered & very tempermental optics, or none at all.
It's still done today; both with reproductions of said rifle, as well as several classes of rifle competition in High Power/Match disciplines. Iron sighted I mean. Or just look at some of the KD range excercises, & as you go back in time, odds are you'll see that the further back you go, the longer the ranges for quals on that sort of range.
Yeah, it's a touch off topic, however, it's very relavent to what can & should be done with a rifle. As opposed to what's taught & practiced for the most part today.
I'd like to see actual footage of "white hot" barrels. Somehow, to me it seems that were the barrels to get that hot, all sorts of nasty things would happen. But I have trouble seeing hot to get them half way to that temp. The heat coming thru the handguards would fry you, as well as melt the handguards. Ditto on destroying the reciever, gas tube, etc. & the barrel would look like a piece of spagetti that's been boiled for 15 min.
Things would jam up a long time prior to getting that hot from what I know of weapons, as well as metalurgy. If the operator could hang onto something at that temp. that is. Although the point's moot.
One item which is FACT is that marksmanship has been on the decline since WW I. Even General Patton commented, & has been quoted in saying that marksmanship is not important.
And the core of said statement's of course a load of crap. Surely colors my opinion of the man, amongst other things he did, illegally & amorally.
That said, & I use this example a fair bit. During the Civil War, Confederate sharpshooters were engaging targets, particularly Union officers at 1000yds & BEYOND with Whitworth black powder rifles. With at best low powered & very tempermental optics, or none at all.
It's still done today; both with reproductions of said rifle, as well as several classes of rifle competition in High Power/Match disciplines. Iron sighted I mean. Or just look at some of the KD range excercises, & as you go back in time, odds are you'll see that the further back you go, the longer the ranges for quals on that sort of range.
Yeah, it's a touch off topic, however, it's very relavent to what can & should be done with a rifle. As opposed to what's taught & practiced for the most part today.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every damned thing I've read here about the futility of attempting to use the M-14 full auto is gospel. I used it a few times to get a feeling, said 'Yep, it's a dilly', and turned it off thereafter. Can't say where the subsequent shots went, we didn't use much paper to shoot at, 1:30 sounds about right.</div></div>
Greg,
One last question then I'm out, were you ever trained when, an how, to shoot a M14 on Full Auto? For that matter how many GI's trained to use the M16 on Full Auto?
If you were on either, which school did you get?
I can drive a car and talk racing but, that does not make me a race car driver.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every damned thing I've read here about the futility of attempting to use the M-14 full auto is gospel. I used it a few times to get a feeling, said 'Yep, it's a dilly', and turned it off thereafter. Can't say where the subsequent shots went, we didn't use much paper to shoot at, 1:30 sounds about right.</div></div>
Greg,
One last question then I'm out, were you ever trained when, an how, to shoot a M14 on Full Auto? For that matter how many GI's trained to use the M16 on Full Auto?
If you were on either, which school did you get?
I can drive a car and talk racing but, that does not make me a race car driver.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grounds Keeper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to see actual footage of "white hot" barrels. Somehow, to me it seems that were the barrels to get that hot, all sorts of nasty things would happen. But I have trouble seeing hot to get them half way to that temp. The heat coming thru the handguards would fry you, as well as melt the handguards. Ditto on destroying the reciever, gas tube, etc. & the barrel would look like a piece of spagetti that's been boiled for 15 min.
Things would jam up a long time prior to getting that hot from what I know of weapons, as well as metalurgy. If the operator could hang onto something at that temp. that is. Although the point's moot.</div></div>
Mike Dillon (Yes Dillon Precision) did a video called "Fire Storm In the Desert",... Quad 50 towards the end. Worth the view for none F/A folks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grounds Keeper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to see actual footage of "white hot" barrels. Somehow, to me it seems that were the barrels to get that hot, all sorts of nasty things would happen. But I have trouble seeing hot to get them half way to that temp. The heat coming thru the handguards would fry you, as well as melt the handguards. Ditto on destroying the reciever, gas tube, etc. & the barrel would look like a piece of spagetti that's been boiled for 15 min.
Things would jam up a long time prior to getting that hot from what I know of weapons, as well as metalurgy. If the operator could hang onto something at that temp. that is. Although the point's moot.</div></div>
Mike Dillon (Yes Dillon Precision) did a video called "Fire Storm In the Desert",... Quad 50 towards the end. Worth the view for none F/A folks
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Grounds keeper:
"Some of what I ask is based on the fact that by age 8, I knew more about shooting than I ever learned on active duty. And I had access to pretty much any weapons I wanted, small arms wise. And yeah, it torques me that we have to bring in CMP guys, & similar to train DM's as there isn't a cadre of instructors big enough with enough knowledge working for Uncle Sam to school them."
I hear ya, but I kinda like that the CMP (DCM) finnally got USED for what they are designed for! Their PURPOSE is to make more young men by Volunteer/Draft age what you claim to have been at 8. Their secondary purpose is to maintain a body of knowledgable old farts to step in and assist as instructors. It's nice to see a government program that WORKS.
Granted, those ideas came from a time when we didn't maintain a large standing army. Since we do, it's without excuse that they cover the basics so poorly.
Grounds keeper:
"Some of what I ask is based on the fact that by age 8, I knew more about shooting than I ever learned on active duty. And I had access to pretty much any weapons I wanted, small arms wise. And yeah, it torques me that we have to bring in CMP guys, & similar to train DM's as there isn't a cadre of instructors big enough with enough knowledge working for Uncle Sam to school them."
I hear ya, but I kinda like that the CMP (DCM) finnally got USED for what they are designed for! Their PURPOSE is to make more young men by Volunteer/Draft age what you claim to have been at 8. Their secondary purpose is to maintain a body of knowledgable old farts to step in and assist as instructors. It's nice to see a government program that WORKS.
Granted, those ideas came from a time when we didn't maintain a large standing army. Since we do, it's without excuse that they cover the basics so poorly.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Two interesting little ditty stories come to mind. We had a Marine Lt. Col visit our church and we got to talking shooting and he said the Marines love to recruit kids from the South as they are the best shots. He said Marine Corps has the figures to prove it. Then again there are T shirts here that say, "The South has been fighting illegal immigration since 1861"
Next there was a Army Lt. Col that shot highpower competition with us at Benning back in late 80s 90s. He had his own M1A and all his own equipment and loaded his own ammo. At any rate he got a slot as the OIC over a large segment of training and he got basic training extended for one week for 11B infantry types. This last week was shooting on the KD range at 600 yards all day every day. He would give some of his NCOs the weekend off and got them weapons and ammo for them to come shoot matches with us.
Don't remember his name but I am sure he is retired now but was a great supporter of marksmanship. Obviously as soon as he left they stopped the extra week of training.
Two interesting little ditty stories come to mind. We had a Marine Lt. Col visit our church and we got to talking shooting and he said the Marines love to recruit kids from the South as they are the best shots. He said Marine Corps has the figures to prove it. Then again there are T shirts here that say, "The South has been fighting illegal immigration since 1861"
Next there was a Army Lt. Col that shot highpower competition with us at Benning back in late 80s 90s. He had his own M1A and all his own equipment and loaded his own ammo. At any rate he got a slot as the OIC over a large segment of training and he got basic training extended for one week for 11B infantry types. This last week was shooting on the KD range at 600 yards all day every day. He would give some of his NCOs the weekend off and got them weapons and ammo for them to come shoot matches with us.
Don't remember his name but I am sure he is retired now but was a great supporter of marksmanship. Obviously as soon as he left they stopped the extra week of training.
