Hell in a Handbasket

I talk on a regular basis to a few guys going in and out of country, and not one has complained about their rifles / carbines issued.

There is a mad scramble (likely based upon some degree of urban legend and superstition) for specific AR magazines, with some new ones by H&K topping the list as "must haves".

This is from guys there in the give and take of it all.

I mostly agree, but I'll offer a small counterpoint. If we can make our weapons perform better, we should, even if they are already performing pretty well now.

Now, I do agree that there are serious issues of cost, as well as the ever-present risk that we might actually make things worse. I want the money to go where it will bring us the best return, be it armor or electronics or sign-up bonuses or what have you. I have no opinion as to whether a new battle rifle is really a cost-effective priority when compared to the other needs we face.

However, the measure of value here is in the size of the improvement, not the size of the baseline. If a new rifle can stop an enemy even 10% more effectively than the old one, that's like having 10% more riflemen on your side - regardless of how high the baseline was when you started. That would be a very worthwhile improvement, if it could be realistically achieved.

Could it? Maybe. I find it very hard to believe that a .223 is the ultimate manstopper in the modern age.

I find it very hard to believe that a .223 is the ultimate manstopper in the modern age.

Hmmm. Where did I say that?

I don't want to accuse you of creating a straw man, but it does look like you are distorting both the spirit and letter of my post.

Just to be clear: I am wary when the critics claim that the .223 is so terrible that it is virtually worthless. The evidence simply doesn't support that assertion.

James

Despite all the complaining by those that haven't been there, there's a lot to be said for the rifle and cartridge now being used. I've never been in the military but my son was a marine. Most of what I'm saying has come from him.

The AR is more accurate and has longer range than the enemy's weapon. My son is very happy with this.

The small caliber means more ammo can be carried per pound. And the less weight the soldier carries the better he can move. As in personal protection situations, movement is critical.

A small caliber longer bullet will penetrate better (sectional density), all else being equal, than the presently available alternatives. Larger calibers can equal the SD and penetration but at the expense of weight and recoil, reducing the ability to acquire multiple targets. Not a big issue if the enemy is not wearing body armor.

He's quite happy with the weapon and cartridge now being supplied. He also says that if bullet performance is actually an issue, which he doubts, then change the bullet construction, conventions and signed agreements be damned. We're not fighting the army of another country, we're fighting murderers.

He also suggests that for in-building conflicts in the city that something like a MP5 or P9 would be a little better because of the weapon length.

The average reporter today, and many of their readers, know far too little about firearms. I expect that when they see the word "jam" they take it to mean total systemic failure. In all probability that 15% reported experienced a misfeed or stovepipe, and cleared it in seconds in accordance with the standard clearing drill.

I didn't mean to suggest that you thought the .223 was the 'ultimate manstopper'; as I understood your post, you simply said that it was pretty good, and probably good enough. I agree with you about that. It clearly works.

My point was that, if there was a cost-effective way to make it even better, than we should. I do think that it can be done, because obviously there is room for improvement here.

My point was that, if there was a cost-effective way to make it even better, than we should. I do think that it can be done, because obviously there is room for improvement here.

I certainly don't have anything against that.

James

Best post I've read about this subject anywhere..

The .223 may no be the best man stopper, but it is definitely the best compromise overall.

Bear in mind the numerous cases cited from Iraq and Afghanistan of the 5.56mm failing to put down jihadis (I believe Michael Yon had some first hand evidence of this). I understand that the military reviewed this recently and declared that a one stop shot could easily be remedied by performing a Mozambique; two to the body and one to the head . Which kind of ruins the whole carry more ammo argument; and could put the lives of US servicemen in danger. Wouldn't a more effective round, which didn't need a headshot under stressful combat conditions be better?

I believe that the M16 family is tarred by a bad reputation; everyone "knows" that it's prone to stoppages. The British L85 had a similar reputation; it's a weapon I have a little experience with and that reputation is exaggerated. From information from those I know still in the service the A2 version is a much more effective combat weapon. We British have a highly accurate weapon that was less than perfect- and we took steps to fix those problems. Hardly screwing things up; are the US taking similar steps?

Having said that, consider the advantages that even an M16 upgrade could offer. A gas piston operating system would add to reliability and a change over to 6.5 Grendel would offer 7.62mm NATO terminal ballistics in the same package. The relatively inexpensive upgrades could offer the US soldier a considerable advantage over what they currently have.

The US used to function of the basis of total spectrum domination; the best of the best in every sphere. By the time the USAF gets a new fighter or bomber, its replacement is already being designed. Despite this, the US infantryman is using 40 year old technology; technology that is not as effective as it could be. Any new upgrades or change to a new weapons system altogether could make US troops more effective and possibly save some lives. Surely that alone is all the consideration needed? We might be winning battles right now but if an upgrade means that those battles are finished quicker and with fewer casualties then isn't the Pentagon duty bound to give the man on the ground the absolute best weapon around?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the reasoning of the top brass who make these decisions. Our questioning all of those in positions of power is essential. US troops went into war with Humvees that then needed to be upgraded with armour which still makes them less effective than the Bradley fighting vehicles they could have been using instead, to give but one example. Soldiers are using a rifle/calibre that's be known to be less than ideal against human-sized targets for years.

Perhaps the US soldier is winning battles not because of the weapons at hand but in spite of them. They are, after all, facing an enemy which is not a highly trained soldier. Are US troops going to have to go to war against an enemy which is at some point in the future with a less than ideal weapon? When they start losing battles then, is that going to be the time for the Pentagon to say, "hey, men are getting killed because of their unreliable weapon with poor stopping power. Perhaps we better start looking for a replacement now?"

Because that's the situation we might face- so when is the right time to provide fighting men with the best weapon they can possibly have? Do you wait until they start losing battles, or do you do it when you can?

The thing that gets me about all this is that the work has already been done. We already have a more efficient and available gas piston design and a more effective calibre for the rifle. The only people who can't get them are the troops at the tip of the spear.

Despite this, the US infantryman is using 40 year old technology; technology that is not as effective as it could be.

It is possible that it could be more effective, but the technology has been upgraded since its introduction in the 1960's. If memory serves, the M16A2 was originally issued in 1983. I think that the M4, which is the rifle presently issued to the front line troops, was first introduced in 1994.

Any new upgrades or change to a new weapons system altogether could make US troops more effective and possibly save some lives.

And, as I pointed out in the post above, it could also put lives at risk.

Those who advocate a change argue a priori that the present system is extremely flawed. This is proven false by the facts. Our troops are much more effective than our enemy.

I also can't help but note that the majority of the opposition, the guys who can't do as well, are using more powerful rounds than our own troops.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the reasoning of the top brass who make these decisions. Our questioning all of those in positions of power is essential.

If you read my post above, you will see that my main objection is to the outrageous characterization of the brass. I have a very hard time finding any pro-change advocate who is willing to consider their reasoning, or to even admit that they are capable of reason.

Because that's the situation we might face- so when is the right time to provide fighting men with the best weapon they can possibly have? Do you wait until they start losing battles, or do you do it when you can?

I have already covered how the M16 has been upgraded over the years, which means that efforts are ongoing to make improvements.

Your question about waiting until battles are lost before going to a better caliber/rifle design is an attempt to construct a straw man. This is because the record of how effective our troops have performed in battle would indicate that they already have a superior system!

We already have a more efficient and available gas piston design and a more effective calibre for the rifle.

Maybe, but maybe not.

Again, read the post above. I have clearly stated that all decisions are trade offs, and the top brass obviously don't think any theoretical advantages outweigh the downsides. Claims that this decision is "killing our boys" are nott credible.

James

Those who advocate a change argue a priori that the present system is extremely flawed. This is proven false by the facts. Our troops are much more effective than our enemy.

A modern, highly trained army complete with air and armour support which has been placed against a rag-tag band of terrorist cells and impoverished warlords. Simply because they are currently winning does not mean that they have the best weapon that they could have. It simply means that they have an adequate weapon. It doesn't prove anything other than that. As I noted, they could be winning in spite of the M16 family. I heard about an ambush in Afghanistan; many of the weapons jammed because they had just be dropped off by helicopter and the downdraught had apparently blown dust into their weapons. The fight was only won- and casualties avoided- when the troops used the attached M203s. Had it not been for that men would certainly have died. Could it have happened to a new and modern weapon design? Certainly- but the fact remains that there are better options out there than the M16. During its trials the L85 upgrade outperformed the M16- only the AK was less prone to stoppages.

We don't expect pilots to win aerial combat through superior tactics and training alone- we provide them with state of the art technology to give them every advantage possible over any enemy he might encounter. My position is that the modern American soldier is not provided with that advantage. He may win battles now against the enemy he is currently facing, but matters may change. A 5.56mm might get the job done (eventually) but a round like 6.5mm Grendel (for example) could give the soldier the advantage of getting that job done more quickly and safely.

I also can't help but note that the majority of the opposition, the guys who can't do as well, are using more powerful rounds than our own troops.

More powerful rounds in a weapon that is designed for reliability over accuracy. The AK works well but the design limits the ability of the enemy to engage US troops at any range. Consider too the type of conflict the US is currently engaged in; and now ponder that the current Chinese armoury seems to be aimed at defeating armoured US troops.

I have already covered how the M16 has been upgraded over the years, which means that efforts are ongoing to make improvements.

And yet the main complaint about the weapon, the direct gas impingement system remains the same. Fouling is forced back directly into the action of the weapon. HK's 416 upgrade appears to be exactly that- an upgrade, one that functions better than the current system. The 416 has been tested after being dunked in mud, water and dust- and it still worked. Could the current M4 do the same? If the 416 performs better should we not consider that the current weapons system is not all it could be?

Your question about waiting until battles are lost before going to a better caliber/rifle design is an attempt to construct a straw man. This is because the record of how effective our troops have performed in battle would indicate that they already have a superior system!

Battles against poorly trained insurgents- not a professional army equipped with modern weapons. The jihadis are armed with nearly 60 year old technology and have neither the training or numbers to engage US troops in number or with any kind of air or armour support. Prior to the Falklands War the British forces were about to get rid of a portion of their fleet- believing that they no longer needed it. The were rapidly proved wrong. We currently face an insurgent/terrorist force; in a year we might be facing a professional army equipped with modern weapons and back up. Any pitched battle in Iraq could probably be quelled rapidly by calling in air support in the form of an A-10 or Apache; but what if the US is denied air supremacy? We win battles not not simply because of a single weapon but because of the entire weapon system that is the US military. Disable communications, affect lines of support or hamper aerial activity and the situation is not quite so clear. Placing the current winning of battles on the M16 does not make all that much sense; at best, all it could prove is that they have a better weapon than the enemy. But what about a different enemy with a different weapon?

The US infantryman could be equipped with a more modern, efficient and reliable weapon than he currently has. And a weapon that could give him a greater advantage in the current battle too. Providing troops with a round that had the same terminal ballistics of the 7.62mm NATO would surely have a difference on the battlefield.

Claims that this decision is "killing our boys" are nott credible.

Well, consider this statement from Michael Yon during his embed time in Iraq-

"The lack of power of the American M-4 and M-16 rifles is astonishing. So many people and cars shot-up, but they just keep going and going."
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/08/monday.html

And then there's this-

"Amazingly, despite being hit by four M4’s from multiple directions, the man still lived a few minutes."

And this-

"Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man’s abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser."

Both are from one article-
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/gates-of-fire.htm

Had things been different, Prosser could easily have been killed.

Let me just repeat this- Four times at point blank range with an M4 and the terrorist survived and had to be subdued in hand to hand.

No, Prosser wasn't killed but he easily could have been. Have any other soldiers died because of the lack of power of the M4? It's impossible to say either way- but it seems obvious from the evidence from Iraq that the rifle is not as effective as it should be. Even in Somalia we heard of troops shooting enemy combatants and the bullets passing right through them without putting them down- they were able to continue firing back.

I realise that an assault rifle is a compromise weapon, but with even minor modification the M16/M4 could be made to function more reliably and with better terminal results- and I'm sure testing of competing weapons would prove this. It might be adequate but US soldiers deserve better than that- they deserve the best weapon they can get to ensure their success and safety in battle.