Survivalist Forum banner

81 - 100 of 155 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,921 Posts
Very few, but enough in Afghanistan to motivate people to take a look at alternative cartridges.

I don't agree with this guy's conclusions, but he describes the problem nicely:


(Spoiler: He really, really likes the Grendel)

The situation in Afghanistan was arguably unusual, in that opponents were engaging from beyond the effective range of 5.56x45mm but the ROE constrained the use of artillery. In a peer conflict, there would be no such constraints.
Indeed. A great article. Not because its right, because its not, but it very well describes the problems with the entire subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,513 Posts
Go read "The New Rules of War", the authors lays out in detail why you are wrong and why continuing to fantasize about "conventional war" being fought like WWII ever again will lead to the defeat of the west.
Sean McFate - a selfimportant world class BS arteest. SeanMcFate-Biography (filesusr.com)

His point that "Tech" is vastly over rated is correct.

"Conventional war" is that grunts assisted by armor and artillery are the only people that take and hold ground. (that is NEVER going to change as long as war is about inflicting your will on your enemy). Everything else is support that may occasionally be useful. Even the AF may show up with an A10 or AC130.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,921 Posts
Was your BG a grunt? If not, his opinion is irrelevant (and wrong). Or you don't understand.
I the only person I can think of who has less say in what rifle he she be carrying than a grunt, is an internet poster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Surely it would have nothing to do with the fact that half the civilians in the country own rifles that just happen to eat the same rounds the military uses. It's not an availability issue, at least for the military, they're going to get theirs, but if they change to a new caliber then manufacturers that supply the military will have to retool to supply that caliber which will reduce the number of machines supplying the current caliber on the civilian market.
This is my concern as well. In a era where every decision made in Washington is a political calculation made by deep statists to marginalize their perceived domestic political enemies, I could foresee the discussion really being about figuring out how to make 5.56mm/.223 less available in bulk to the gun owning public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,513 Posts
For those who decide when and where armed conflict will occur - ie defense contractors and the elected officials who reside in their pockets - the only goal is to prolong the every conflict to the greatest extent possible. Loss of life, disability, dismemberment and all associated long term costs be damned. They want what they want. Always have, always will.

Regarding individual weapons, I say let the troops decide. They can choose from any of the existing issued options which are supported and maintained by their armorers, or they can buy anything they want from the open market and absorb the cost of training, support and maintenance out of their own pockets. I suspect that the vast majority of those presented with such a choice will wholeheartedly opt for the standardized rifles and pistols.

What say you?
I say that all of the above is ..... nieve/silly/nonsense.

Logistics for one.

That average 20yr old troop doesn't know his breech from his muzzle. Never touched a weapon before basic training (regardless of MOS).

DOD/the Army (to a less extent perhaps) the Jarheads have NEVER had any particular interest in properly prioritizing the equipment of Infantry Platoons. (for proof look at the **** poor boots and loadbearing equipment of the last 200yrs). There is always $ for BS but never for equipment and training the pointy end of the spear/bayonet. Today it is (or before Jan) to buy the latest "Tech" gimcracks. Not for ammunition for sufficient live fire training, fuel/repair parts for vehicles. I'll make a bet that in the next 2yr DOD blows more $ on "green diesel" than on training 5.56mm.

The ONLY progress I can think of in recent years is the Infantry is now equipped with optics on their weapons. Improving and keeping up with this is at least as important as a new round. We're still pretending that we can made a new Infantry soldier in less than 5-6m. That his rifle should be "secured" in a vault rather than fired weekly. That his time is usefully employed "guarding" the front gate, or sitting thru endless repeating "HR" lectures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
"Everyone" in the military? Really? Well, glad to hear that coming from someone who



Are you sure you aren't just regurgitating stories you've heard on the internet? I mean, I was in for 28 years, and I never had a problem with it. Yeah, I did hear some guys who went to the 'stan bitch about it not having long legs, but I do know that in my trips to Iraq, it never failed me. ANY service rifle is a compromise. No one weapon can do everything, but the M16/M4 can do most things well enough to remain in service. A larger caliber weapon would do better in open areas, but would be a bitch to drag around the other 90% of the time. Keep in mind that Afghanistan wasn't a real all out war either. We were very limited with our ROE there, and using heavier weapons (calling for fire) was most often not available in response. Too much concern for collateral damage. The personal weapon cannot be relied upon to do EVERYTHING.

Problems with the current weapon aren't in the system itself, or the round it fires.

The problem is purely in the training of the individuals carrying it, and in the policies, and ROEs they are restricted by in using them, and the other weapons at their disposal.
Oh for Christ's sake, get your panties out of a bunch. I relayed what I had saw in multiple places, including this specific site, I said as much, so if you want to go picking something apart start with your ass. What do you want me to do, throw you a party?

People have individual opinions, just like out here in the civy land, I take that stuff with a grain of salt because opinions are like buttholes, everybody has them and most of them stunk.

I never said it was a bad round, had you bothered to read and actually process what I wrote you would know that I have absolutely no problem with the round.

Jesus, it's soft feeling people like you why I left this site 6 years ago. You've got nothing better to do than cruise posts and thump your chest due to your vast experience. I talk to people face to face as well as all over social media and web pages. I have heard all kinds of opinions from all kinds of people from police and SRT members to vets from nearly every branch of the military, including a few special forces members, but suddenly I'm supposed to throw all that out the window because YOU had 28 years in and liked it?

Get stuffed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
Yep... actually less than the 7.62AK. But how many military engagements are beyond 100 yards?

Both the 762AK and 3Black are incredibly effective at wounding the enemy. And the goal is to wound.... not kill.

One wounded soldier takes two healthy soldiers to carry him out.

If I have 30 enemies closing in on my BOL, I am shooting 10 of them.... every 3rd one. 'cause they will be too damn dumb to ignore the wounded.


.......
The Chi-Neese/North Koreans, and Moslem Brotherhood affiliates DO NOT evacuate their wounded, the former, Asians, don't care about their wounded, they have plenty of replacements (see Korean "police action") hell they sent thousands into battle unarmed telling them to pick up a dead comrades weapon, the latter, the Islamics, hope to die in battle and get their 72 morbidly obese, gender non-specific virgins.

Our service-members require weapons with pure killing power, the BAR kind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
Correct.

A wounded serviceman almost immediately removes other personnel and additional resources from active combat, than merely the one serviceman wounded.

A serviceman killed on the battlefield, requires no immediate additional personnel or resources.
You're talking in terms of civilized people whom value life, our enemies are neither civilized nor do they value life and that's where you made a yuuge mistake. In any conflict our aim must be to kill as many as the enemy as humanly possible, those not killed must be the beneficiaries of a round or two to their junk to prevent their ability to reproduce should they survive wartime detention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
"Everyone" in the military? Really? Well, glad to hear that coming from someone who



Are you sure you aren't just regurgitating stories you've heard on the internet? I mean, I was in for 28 years, and I never had a problem with it. Yeah, I did hear some guys who went to the 'stan bitch about it not having long legs, but I do know that in my trips to Iraq, it never failed me. ANY service rifle is a compromise. No one weapon can do everything, but the M16/M4 can do most things well enough to remain in service. A larger caliber weapon would do better in open areas, but would be a bitch to drag around the other 90% of the time. Keep in mind that Afghanistan wasn't a real all out war either. We were very limited with our ROE there, and using heavier weapons (calling for fire) was most often not available in response. Too much concern for collateral damage. The personal weapon cannot be relied upon to do EVERYTHING.

Problems with the current weapon aren't in the system itself, or the round it fires.

The problem is purely in the training of the individuals carrying it, and in the policies, and ROEs they are restricted by in using them, and the other weapons at their disposal.

Iraq is not Afghanistan, closer quarters combat mostly "urban" as opposed to mountainous terrain and long distance engagements, two nearly diametrically different battlefields save for the occasional exceptions.

Stopping power, let me rephrase, "killing power", is what's required anything less just tickles the tendies of our drugged up adversaries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Every tool has a specific purpose. I don't pick up a drill to drive nails with. Nor would I choose to drill a hole with my bow saw. The original post was about the US military changing its standard frontline cartridge. As argued above there are pros and cons. The 5.56 has its place in the toolbox. Are there better rounds for particular situations - certainly. But I wouldn't want every soldier carrying a .338 Lapua or a .50 Barret either.

The Grendel has certain advantages under some conditions. Same can be said of the .308 .06 or 8mm mag. I like the .458 SOCOM for some things I like 155 Howitzer and the MLRS for others. So? Doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the .556 in its niche.

I don't see a shift away from the .556 as the main battle rifle anytime soon. Just too much investment in that platform to toss it aside. It's not optimum for some AORs - but it's still adequate and versatile enough to maintain a superiority role for the foreseeable future.

I'd like to see us go back to a .30 cal cartridge .308 or .06 with distance and terminal impact that far exceed the 5.56. But it's still a useful tool in the box for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
Correct.

A wounded serviceman almost immediately removes other personnel and additional resources from active combat, than merely the one serviceman wounded.

A serviceman killed on the battlefield, requires no immediate additional personnel or resources.
Uh, I read and understand exactly what you said.

It's BS.

Pretty clear.
 

·
Retired and luvin it!
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
I'm not up to date on all of the advances on body armor so will leave that to others. What I will chine in on is that during Desert Shield/Desert Storm the shift towards adding optical sights was in the works. To me it makes perfect sense to adopt a cartridge that can stretches the effective range to match the capability of the optics.

It was only a matter of time that optics started to expose some of the inherent ballistic weaknesses of the 5.56 round. Ask any person that shot the Marine known distance qualification/competition courses (prior to the 90s) about how often they got dinged by projectiles bouncing off of the 500 yard targets (made from cheesecloth, paper and paste). I spent a lot of time on the range as both a coach and competitor and the average scores went up several points after the switch to the A2. We saw the 500yard scores improve the most. More improvements happened after my time in but there is only so much a 55gr, 62gr or even a 77gr bullet can do at extended distances.

Don't take this to mean that I'm not a fan of the little high speed projectiles but due to different battlefield environments call for different capabilities. Why do you think so many M14's were hastily pressed back into service? If I recall correctly there were more than one investigations as units with high head-shot kills was suspected of summary execution style kills. What may have worked well on soft targets at extended distances often failed miserably against hardened targets or longer ranges. I see value in our troops having additional capabilities and time will tell how well that new platform works.

Now, all that aside (putting my tinfoil boonie cap on) I think its a plan by the anti-2nd amendment factions to dry up our source of surplus brass to help disarm us <grin>...
 

·
Retired Army
Joined
·
6,398 Posts
Iraq is not Afghanistan, closer quarters combat mostly "urban" as opposed to mountainous terrain and long distance engagements, two nearly diametrically different battlefields save for the occasional exceptions.

Stopping power, let me rephrase, "killing power", is what's required anything less just tickles the tendies of our drugged up adversaries.
I know... This is why I stated that no one weapon can cover everything. A bigger rifle can have more reach, a smaller rifle will be handier in close quarters, and be easier to carry day to day... especially the ammo.

It's all a compromise, and the rifle we have now, fits the bill... more times... than not.

NOTHING is perfect, but the M16/M4 is good enough to still serve, and there's nothing out there good enough, different enough, (nor is there reason enough) to warrant the expense, and logistical nightmare of the change.
 
Joined
·
14,876 Posts
Uh, I read and understand exactly what you said.

It's BS.

Pretty clear.
Then let's examine what I stated, to what you understood. I've cleaned up the extraneous commentary.

...The shoot to wound thing is utter BS. No one in the field does this, no matter what the general says.

Wounding the enemy is bad marksmanship. End of story.
...A wounded serviceman almost immediately removes other personnel and additional resources from active combat, than merely the one serviceman wounded.

A serviceman killed on the battlefield, requires no immediate additional personnel or resources.
I merely stated a wounded serviceman immediately removes additional personnel and resources from combat, as opposed to dead personnel. Nowhere did I state that one should "shoot to wound."
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
16,176 Posts
The US Military has not fought an advanced nation since 1945. What happens when we have to fight a country that equips its military exactly like we do.

Drones, Satelite intel, combined arms, close air support, night vision, and modern body armor. What if they field a battle rifle that outranges the 5.56, and we dont have air supperiority.

We did not get the greatest military the world has ever seen by designing our stuff "Good Enough". Good enough means our guy looses half the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I will do that but I dont recall alluding to what you suggested, I bluntly said that it is my belief that Biden was paid (by the Chinese) to cripple our military ability in future conflicts. He's a likeable useful idiot with historically terrible judgment but I doubt he is purposely being a traitor. That is Chinese MO, they are very good at it across as wide spectrum of applications.

This next war will be alot more varied in approach than previous wars. Nukes are being replaced by eugenics, no fall out just deserted assets and real estate....like smallpox blankets in the old west. Also, lots of cyber and hyper missle warfare. Also, refugees will be weaponised to target another population with a very specialized bioweapon custom designed for that specific population (thank you human genome project). The modern dmallpox blanket....Sounds really scetchy, and it is, but with injectible genetic replacrment tech like CRISPR, its very doable now, or will be when the non-voluntary human trials with the Uighyr population conclude.

And it will be worldwide, but especially in Central Asia (2 superhiwaghs stopped at th er border), South America and Africa. It will be largely naval, with land actions in support of naval pushes(East Asia, north coast of Autralia, Antarctic) and it will be largely racial and ethnic because its a war to expand economic dominance with markets in largely 3rd world areas amongst 3rd world populations, as will many of the civilian casualties, whether proximal, incedental or targeted because the Chinese as a culture are traditionally very xenophobic. The US is in the midst of gearing up massively for this, so its quite noticable when a very dangerously compromised POTUS like biden is in office.

Its also very interesting that India experiences almost a coincidental virulent outbreak of a coronavirus strain just after prrvailing in a border dispute with China. Wonder what the Chinese would be doing right now if they had won it?????
Very well thought out, IMO. I agree with this assessment for the most part. Refugee populations will be weaponized more than they already have been. I believe the CCP will respond to our attempts to maintain hegemony in the Pacific by expanding the road and belt initiative to Central and South American nations more aggressively. They will incentivize those governments to accelerate the population migration northward by any means available. Ask the guys at Ft. Detrick and you will get a grim assessment of the existing and emerging biological threats the CCP has at their disposal. This little WuFlu served as an FTX of sorts for the CCP and Western nations failed miserably. Had this been a virus engineered to kill efficiently, the CCP overlords would now be the preeminent global power. Do not think that lesson was lost to them.
 
81 - 100 of 155 Posts
Top