Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Afghan Taliban Small Arms Procurement and Use

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by S-2 View Post
    "In a way,Sir, I think we should be very grateful to the Soviets.They saturated the market with AK's that also created a different tactical approach than what was traditional to the area.We managed to neutralize that by training ,tactics and technology.If they would resort to a wider use of trained marksmen and snipers Western losses will soar.So far they didn't managed to do that.Granted,it's not an easy task to build such a force...."

    Basic rifle marksmanship was heavily invested, in my view, by the U.S. Army. By all accounts, the marines take it even more seriously. I really wouldn't speak for foreign armies one way or another. I've not fired an M-4 carbine but the M-16 truly was deadly out to 300 meters with a trained rifleman possessing a zeroed weapon.
    The M-16A2/A4 with it's long barrel and iron carry handle sights is very capable against point targets to 400+ meters in the hands of any "expert" qualified rifleman. With tritium iron sights you don't even need optics, and the A2/A4 is a lethal round the clock weapon. With Mk262 Mod1 ammo, you can add another 50 to maybe even 100yds of practical range IMO.

    Very, very good rifle.

    The M-4 is also an excellent weapon, but it's a harder weapon to shoot well. It has a much shorter barrel, much shorter sight radius, much lighter weight which equates to more recoil and muzzle climb during rapid fire, and that all equates to a much shorter practical max range for all but the best shooters.

    The M-4 was an excellent weapon for Iraq, i don't think it's such a great idea in Afghanistan. It seems to me the M-16A4 would be a significantly superior weapon for that theater with it's longer range engagements.

    The increased velocity would also equate to much more consistent terminal performance even with M193 and M855 ammunition.
    Last edited by Bill; 03 Feb 11,, 07:20.

    Comment


    • #17
      "The M-16A2/A4 with it's long barrel and rifle sights is very capable against point targets to 400+ meters in the hands of any "expert" rifleman."

      That would describe you. Not me. I was a trained rifleman with a zeroed weapon who saw the range no more than any typical artillery unit. I didn't shoot on my battalion's competition team. Max range on the qual course was 300 meters and I hit my fair share to consistently shoot sharpshooter and twice expert. That would probably reflect the shooting of most conscientous combat arms soldiers who didn't use small arms for a living.

      Never saw 400 meter targets but no reason not to believe you'd drill targets at that range all day long.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mihais View Post
        1. Level 3 and 4 body armor can defeat 7.62x39,7.62x54 and .308.
        Level III will not defeat 5.56mm or most other rifle fire. Class IV will. I have two class IIIA vests, one of which has class IV ceramic trauma plates. Class III is rated to stop 12 gauge "rifled" type slugs, 00 buck, and .44 magnum 240gr JSP, but not rifle fire. There are even a few EA 5.7x28mm rounds that can punch through a Class IIIA vest.

        Class IV will stop anything up to and including US .30-06 AP rounds, or so it is said.

        Originally posted by S-2 View Post
        "The M-16A2/A4 with it's long barrel and rifle sights is very capable against point targets to 400+ meters in the hands of any "expert" rifleman."

        That would describe you. Not me. I was a trained rifleman with a zeroed weapon who saw the range no more than any typical artillery unit. I didn't shoot on my battalion's competition team. Max range on the qual course was 300 meters and I hit my fair share to consistently shoot sharpshooter and twice expert. That would probably reflect the shooting of most conscientous combat arms soldiers who didn't use small arms for a living.

        Never saw 400 meter targets but no reason not to believe you'd drill targets at that range all day long.
        How about 400 meters prone with an M16A1 sir? ;)


        The problem for most troops is one of practice. Most soldiers, as you say, never even get to shoot a 400 meter range, so it's hard to expect them to be competent at that range, even though it's within the capability of the weapon they are employing.

        Honestly though, there were guys way better than me.

        If I was the boss in that theater, i would order the M-16A2/A4 to replace the M4 as the general issue weapon. It is far better suited to the engagement ranges that are reported there.
        Last edited by Bill; 03 Feb 11,, 07:33.

        Comment


        • #19
          gunnut,

          M-16 wasn't badly designed. It was the poor training, rumors about this wonder rifle that didn't need cleaning, and the decision to switch propellant, that generated so much bad press.

          Direct impingement system need way more cleaning to work properly. The tight tolerances produced a very accurate weapon, but not very forgiving. M-16 did everything Eugene Stoner designed it to do.
          read "the gun", by cj chivers.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment

          Working...
          X