Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces Weapons > Weapons Discussion Area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 08-09-2017, 21:16   #16
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,131
Actually two rifles would be a great compromise. We have a jungle uniform, a winter uniform, desert etc.

Why on earth don't we have a short range, med range and long range rifle?

And making one that does all three, that's called a failure.
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2017, 15:50   #17
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
7624U is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Destination Unknown
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
Actually two rifles would be a great compromise. We have a jungle uniform, a winter uniform, desert etc.

Why on earth don't we have a short range, med range and long range rifle?

And making one that does all three, that's called a failure.
We have that Scar-L 5.56 Scar-H 7.62
Long range M-2010 in 300.WM
__________________
"You do not truly own anything that you can't carry in both arms at a dead run"

"Robert A. Heinlein"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2017, 17:15   #18
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
JJ_BPK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NOVA
Posts: 8,883
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
Actually two rifles would be a great compromise. We have a jungle uniform, a winter uniform, desert etc.

Why on earth don't we have a short range, med range and long range rifle?

And making one that does all three, that's called a failure.
Strongly agree..

Up thru Nam, infantry had choices:

Infantry rifles
  • Vietnamese Rangers with M16 rifles in Saigon during the Tết Offensive
  • L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle – Used by Australian and New Zealand soldiers in Vietnam
  • AR-10 – Limited uses
  • A U.S. soldier with an M14 watches as supplies are dropped in Vietnam, 1967.
  • M1 Garand – Used by the South Vietnamese, South Koreans and Laotians. Limited numbers were carried by early US advisors and USMC troops.
  • M1, M1A1, & M2 Carbine – Used by the South Vietnamese Military, Police and Security Forces, US Military, and Laotians supplied by the United States
  • M1903A3 Springfield – Limited numbers were used by the South Vietnamese and USMC.
  • M14 rifle Issued to most US troops from the early stages of the war until 1967-68, when it was replaced by the M16.[7]
  • M16, XM16E1, and M16A1 – M16 was issued in 1963, but due to reliability issues, it was replaced by the M16A1 in 1967 which added the forward assist and chrome-lined barrel to the rifle for increased reliability.[8]
  • CAR-15 – Carbine variant of the M16 produced in very limited numbers, fielded by special operations early on. Later supplemented by the improved XM177.
  • XM177 (Colt Commando) – Further development of the CAR-15, used heavily by MACV-SOG, the US Air Force, and US Army.[6]
  • Stoner 63 – used by U.S. Navy SEALs and USMC.[6]
  • Heckler & Koch G3 – Used by Thai forces.
  • Heckler & Koch HK33 – Used by Thai forces that were not armed by the United States. It was chambered for the same cartridge as the M16 assault rifle used by American troops.
  • T223 – which is a copy of the Heckler & Koch HK33 Assault Rifle under license by Harrington & Richardson used in small numbers by Navy SEAL teams. Even though the empty H&R T223 was 0.9 pounds (0.41 kg) heavier than an empty M16A1, the weapon had a forty-round magazine available for it and this made it attractive to the SEALS.[6]
  • Winchester Model 70 – Used by the USMC.
  • MAS-36 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
  • MAS-49 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
Sniper/marksman rifles
  • M1C/D Garand – Limited numbers were used by the South Vietnamese.
  • M1903A4 Springfield – Used by the USMC throughout the war, replaced by the M40.
  • M21 Sniper Weapon System – Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) used by the US Army.
  • M40 – Bolt-action sniper rifle meant to replace the M1903 Springfield rifle; used by the U.S. Marines.

Submachine guns
  • Thompson submachine gun – Used often by South Vietnamese troops, and in small quantities by U.S. artillery and helicopter units.
  • M3 Grease gun – Standard U.S. Military submachine-gun, also used by the South Vietnamese[6]
  • Ingram MAC-10 – Used by U.S. special operations forces.[6]
  • Swedish K – Used by Navy SEALs in the beginning of the war, but later replaced by the Smith & Wesson M76 in the late 1960s. Significant numbers were also utilized by the South Vietnamese,[6] and limited numbers were used in Laos by advisors, and Laotian fighters.
  • Smith & Wesson M76 – Copy of the Swedish K, replacing it in 1967.[6]
  • Madsen M-50 – Large numbers utilized by South Vietnamese and U.S. forces, supplied from Denmark.[6]
  • Owen Gun – Standard Australian submachine-gun in the early stages of the war, later replaced by the F1.
  • F1 submachine gun – Replaced the Owen Gun in Australian service.
  • Sterling submachine gun – Used by Australian SASR and other special operations units.
  • Sten submachine gun – Used by U.S. special operations forces, often with a suppressor mounted.
  • Uzi – Used by special operations forces, supplied from Israel.
  • Beretta M12 – Limited numbers were used by US embassy security units.[9]
  • MAT-49 submachine gun – Captured models were used in limited numbers [6]
  • M50/55 Reising – Limited numbers were used by MACV-SOG and other irregular forces.[6]
  • United Defense M42 – Used by the South Vietnamese.
  • MAS-38 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
  • A180 – Used by the South Vietnamese Forces.
  • Vigneron M2 - Used by the South Korea Army.

Shotguns
  • Ithaca 37 - The shotguns were used as an individual weapon during jungle patrol; infantry units were authorized a shotgun by TO & E (Table of Organization & Equipment). Shotguns were not general issue to all infantrymen, but were select issue, such as one per squad, etc.
  • Winchester Model 1912 – Pump-action shotgun was used by the Marines during the early stages of the war
  • Ithaca 37 – Pump-action shotgun Used by NAVY SEALs and ANZAC.[6]
  • Remington 7188 – Experimental select fire shotgun, withdrawn due to lack of reliability[6]
  • Remington Model 870 – Pump-action shotgun primary shotgun used by Marines and ANZAC after 1966[6]
  • Special Operations Weapon a modification for a Remington 1100 which made it fully automatic
  • Remington 11-48 – Semi-automatic shotgun used by the Marines in small quantities
  • Winchester Model 1897 – Used by the Marines during the early stages of the war, but was later replaced by the Remington Model 870
  • Winchester Model 1200 – Pump-action shotgun used by the U.S. Army
  • Stevens Model 520-30 and Model 620[10]
  • Stevens Model 77E – Pump-action shotgun used by Army and Marine forces in Southeast Asia. Almost 70,000 Model 77Es were procured by the military for use in SE Asia during the 1960s
  • Browning Auto-5 - Remington M11 Semi-automatic shotgun used by the South Vietnamese Forces
  • Winchester Model 21 - Used by the South Vietnamese Forces
  • Remington 31 - Used by the South Vietnamese Forces

Machine guns
  • Stoner M63a Commando & Mark 23 Mod.0 – Used by U.S. Navy SEALs and tested by Force Recon.[6]
  • M60 machine gun – GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun) Standard General Purpose Machine Gun for the U.S., Australian, New Zealand, and South Vietnamese forces.[6]
  • M1918A2 – Issued to troops during the early stages of the war by the United States. But many were airdropped into Laos and used by Laotian fighters. Also used by South Vietnamese.
  • M1917 Browning machine gun – .30cal heavy machine gun issued to some machine gunners in the South Vietnamese Army and also in limited use by the U.S. Army.
  • M1919 Browning machine gun – Vehicle and helicopter mounted machine gun. Also fitted to Australian M113 Light Reconnaissance Vehicles.[6] Meanwhile, still of use by many South Vietnamese and Laotion infantry forces.
  • Heckler & Koch HK21 – Used by Thai forces.
  • Colt CMG-2 – Experimental light machine gun deployed by SEAL Team 2 in 1970.[6]
  • Browning M2HB .50cal Heavy Machine Gun [6]
  • M1941 Johnson machine gun – Used by South Vietnamese Forces.
  • FM-24/29 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
  • Madsen machine gun - Used by the South Korea Forces.
  • Chauchat - Used by the CIDG.
Plus miscellaneous pick-ups..

Granted, some were incremental improvements, as we learned..

But we had the ability to field a verity of weapons as the needs of the business.
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2017, 18:34   #19
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Box is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 3,211
We dont need a separate gun for long range shooting; why do you goons think we bought variable power Elcans for the M4? It's so we can shoot targets at longer ranges !!!

Boy, you guys are dumb
...some of you need to learn how to apply Lean-6-Sigma to the aRmy markspersonship programs.


Think of the waste reduction we could archive by applying some industry standard efficiency techniques:

-A 1-to-6 scope on top of our existing weapons means there is less equipment and ammunition to transport since a 6 power scope would be a 30% increase in the range that we can shoot our weapons !!!!

-Waaaay less inventory to maintain since we just recycle our current stockpile. Just purchase a few imporved Elcan scopes, some Danial Defense shorty uppers, and some drop-in trigger kits and the force will feel like we have up-graded their weaponry with no substantial increase in our inventory.

-The switch to commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components provided by popular vendors simplifies the amount of motion performed by the procurement specialists…. (yet ANOTHER increase in efficiency)

-The switch to COTS will decrease the wait times over the waiting associated with the standard supply system.

-Over-processing and over-production will no longer be a problem since COTS items are someone elses headache (plus… less inventory for the arMy to manage)

-Defects wont be an issue: think of how big the headache was a few years ago when we grounded some parachute equipment: stand-downs, research, reviews, retraining, excessive equipment inspections, etc. A COTS solution means we just go buy our shit from someone else when we decide it isnt performing to our liking any more.

-Last of all, the under-utilization of employees will be more manageable. By buying some recognizable COTS items to make people think we are moving forward, we will free up more manpower to develop training vignettes to address WISR implementation plans.


…now if this North Korea thing gets any more inconvenient, we may have to go back the white board to rethink a few issues, but overall, I think the current procurement process is looking great !!!!
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, or The 1st Special Forces Regiment. The Department of Defense and subordinate elements bear no responsibility or liability for the content of these opinions. These opinions are provided purely as social commentary and entertainment and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

...Hillary Klint0n is NOT my president

Last edited by Box; 08-10-2017 at 18:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2017, 14:35   #20
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7624U View Post
We have that Scar-L 5.56 Scar-H 7.62
Long range M-2010 in 300.WM
How are they?

(Never used a Scar.)
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2017, 01:27   #21
frostfire
Area Commander
 
frostfire's Avatar
 
frostfire is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: land of Airborne and Special Operations
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
Distance.........

For close in, 5.56 is supreme.

Outside of 300m you need to step it up to .30 cal.

Something in-between, I really doubt it. And while thinking about it and before you answer or throw out your opinions remember why we went to 5.56. You really want to carry 300 rounds of .30 cal ammo (and mags) as a basic load?

And I don't think the US Army is going to go BTHP for infantry ammo any day soon. So we're going to have to get used to the little damage FMJ does.
What is the latest on polymer casing?
I have not followed it up since playing with some at AMU few years back.
The weight difference is significant and I doubt folks pick up the casings downrange to reload
__________________
"we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" Rom. 5:3-4

"So we can suffer, and in suffering we know who we are" David Goggins

"Aide-toi, Dieu t'aidera " Jehanne, la Pucelle

Der, der Geld verliert, verliert einiges;
Der, der einen Freund verliert, verliert viel mehr;
Der, der das Vertrauen verliert, verliert alles.

INDNJC
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2017, 09:48   #22
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
The Reaper is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,240
I am not a graduate of Thermodynamics, but the brass case heating up would seem to me to some degree to act as a heat sink removing heat from the chamber.

Obviously, at some point you reach sufficient heat for a cook-off, and then all bets are off.

How many people need a rifle capable of 400 meter plus accuracy when the Army trains out to a maximum of 300 meters on a pop-up target?

How often do we get an opportunity much less a requirement for a squad to engage targets at more than 300 meters?

Has anyone taken their unit with their assigned weapons and effective long range ammo out to a real rifle range, out to 1,000 meters and taught them how to engage targets at longer ranges?

Why is the military always looking for a mechanical change, or a magic bullet to replace adequate training? The three round burst mechanism is a prime example of this. Doubling the time on BRM and allowing shooters with potential to attend advanced rifle marksmanship training would seem to me to be a much cheaper solution than replacing every rifle, light machine gun, and round in the inventory. But that is just my opinion.

The environment would seem to dictate the long range requirement and the interchangeability of the AR would seem to me to be ideal for maximum flexibility. Most of the team members I have known have used their M-4s a lot more up close or inside buildings rather than at extended ranges. Situations calling for 600 meter plus engagements are better assigned to a 7.62 NATO weapon for the terminal ballistics. A squad or an ODA could have an M-240 or two, a couple of M-249 SAWs, several M-4s, and a couple of designated marksmen with 7.62 long-range rifles while requiring only two different mags, two different belts, and two types/calibers of ammo, and that would seem to me to have them well-equipped for anything from muzzle to 800 meters or better. Any addition of intermediate calibers or SMGs could result in a half-dozen different calibers and as many feeding devices, most of which are not interchangeable.

The best solution I can see is for the units to have both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO caliber weapons in the arms room, allowing a unit to conduct their own threat analysis and deploy with whichever caliber (of the two) mix the units feel is optimal. If they want a longer range designated marksman with a reduced ammo load, so be it.

Allowing smaller-statured, lower-testosterone soldiers with lesser-upper body strength would seem to me to be an argument against allowing them into combat arms MOSs, but what do I know? How will they cope with the heavier weapon and ammo, and consequent reduced basic load? Will their male counterparts have to carry more to make up for them?

One of the major advantages of the AR series weapons is the ability (within the same action length) to go from a 7" to a 20" barrel merely by swapping out the uppers. You can configure as a submachine gun, a carbine, a DMR, or a full length rifle by just swapping uppers. All can use the same ammo and mags.

Having an arms room full of U.S. and foreign weapons is all well and good, but being able to borrow a mag from any other squad member when running low in a firefight has a certain appeal to me. Having a mix of three or more calibers and feeding devices among a handful of troops would seem to me to be a significant concern. 5.56 in the Mk 262 loading can be effective well beyond the range of most shooters. IMHO, there is little if any range gap between the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, as long as the proper loads are selected.

If we have to go through this all over again, I would like to see the comparisons include the 5.56 Mk 262 Mod 1 rounds and a good 6.5 Grendel load.

Personally, I do not see the short, 5.56mm based 6mms/.243s representing significant improvement over the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

The .300 AAC Blackout has a niche for subsonic operation, and works as well as an AK at shorter ranges, but certainly has limited long range ability.

The long 6.5/.260 calibers such as the .260 Rem and .6.5 Creedmore are great performers in external ballistics, but require a change to a .308 sized action. The shorter 6.5 rounds, like the Grendel, are interesting, but until we are ready to replace the 5.56 in all applications, not really feasible for a couple of rifles per squad. I am not sure that the limited case capacity will allow the outstanding 6.5 projo to reach its full ballistic potential.

The 7mm/.284 rounds are again, going to require a larger weapon with a 7.62 NATO sized action.

Perhaps the real issue here is the movement of the Army toward "green", lead-free ammunition (like the M855A1) that appears to have been selected for environmental/political reasons and seems to be less effective than the rounds that proceeded it. When you place wacky environmental concerns over efficacy and our soldiers' lives, you have these problems.

Pardon my wandering, multiple issues occurred to me as I was writing this.

As always, my .02, YMMV.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2017
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2017, 11:03   #23
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper View Post
TR
One note I will add is that since the issuing of optics to the combat soldiers the 300m range is now more like 500m. Hence my argument there should be 2x rifles using 2x calibers.

I'd like to see an infantry platoon with a 50-50 mix of 5.56 and 7.62 rifles. And the 7.62 rifles going to those that can actually shoot straight.
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 09:24   #24
frostfire
Area Commander
 
frostfire's Avatar
 
frostfire is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: land of Airborne and Special Operations
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
One note I will add is that since the issuing of optics to the combat soldiers the 300m range is now more like 500m. Hence my argument there should be 2x rifles using 2x calibers.

I'd like to see an infantry platoon with a 50-50 mix of 5.56 and 7.62 rifles. And the 7.62 rifles going to those that can actually shoot straight.
This is why I never cease to admonish NCO, officer, and Soldier of various
Units to attend the small arms championship. There isnt that many venues where you can "true" the ACOG and ELCAN from 25m to 500m to actual silhouette w spotter, not pop ups. Yes, it's not as sexy as it was in mid 2000's w $$$ prize tables and the last vendor giving prizes was SIG 3 years ago (hmmmmm), but it's still a great learning event and skill validation.

FWIW, yours truly defeated all active duty competitors w optics (Ranger,
Sniper, DI school, 1ID, etc. but no SMU) using M16A4 iron sights this year.
No replacement for solid fundamentals
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1268.jpg (29.3 KB, 57 views)
__________________
"we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" Rom. 5:3-4

"So we can suffer, and in suffering we know who we are" David Goggins

"Aide-toi, Dieu t'aidera " Jehanne, la Pucelle

Der, der Geld verliert, verliert einiges;
Der, der einen Freund verliert, verliert viel mehr;
Der, der das Vertrauen verliert, verliert alles.

INDNJC
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 11:10   #25
Razor
Quiet Professional
 
Razor's Avatar
 
Razor is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 4,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
<Attached pic>
You shot supine vs. prone and still won? That's just being mean and rubbing in it their faces, ff.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 11:47   #26
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
JJ_BPK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NOVA
Posts: 8,883
FF

Is that a Bad Moon Rising??

Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1268.jpg (69.0 KB, 31 views)
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 11:57   #27
Texas_Shooter
SF Candidate
 
Texas_Shooter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box View Post

-The switch to commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components provided by popular vendors simplifies the amount of motion performed by the procurement specialists…. (yet ANOTHER increase in efficiency)
Second this idea.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 15:01   #28
NurseTim
Guerrilla
 
NurseTim is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NM
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacOfficer View Post
Thank you TS and WD,

I suppose any compromise between the carbine and rifle would be a failure of both.

I would hope the competition between philosophies will yield an improved system.

TO
What about a bullpup design? Not SA-80, more like AUG.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 15:19   #29
2018commo
Quiet Professional
 
2018commo's Avatar
 
2018commo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sirius Channel 23
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
This is why I never cease to admonish NCO, officer, and Soldier of various
Units to attend the small arms championship. There isnt that many venues where you can "true" the ACOG and ELCAN from 25m to 500m to actual silhouette w spotter, not pop ups. Yes, it's not as sexy as it was in mid 2000's w $$$ prize tables and the last vendor giving prizes was SIG 3 years ago (hmmmmm), but it's still a great learning event and skill validation.

FWIW, yours truly defeated all active duty competitors w optics (Ranger,
Sniper, DI school, 1ID, etc. but no SMU) using M16A4 iron sights this year.
No replacement for solid fundamentals
It's the Indian not the bow, great shooting FF.
__________________
SFA D-7914

Jump Street Never Ends

“There is a road, no simple highway, between the dawn and the dark of night, and if you go, no one may follow, that path is for your steps alone”

"Draw unto others as they have been drawn to you"
  Reply With Quote

More Powerful Combat Rifle ???
Old 08-13-2017, 15:20   #30
tom kelly
Quiet Professional
 
tom kelly's Avatar
 
tom kelly is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Posts: 597
More Powerful Combat Rifle ???

Marksmanship and Shot Placement are the solution to this dilemma: Along with Training and PRACTICE.
__________________
EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO TO HEAVEN: BUT, NOBODY WANTS TO DIE.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:57.



Copyright 2004-2017 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies