Proposed New US Service Rifle Cartridges

Thats a first... Too dumb to train. Guess we should just skip basic and AIT and send em straight to combat.
Click to expand...

Minimal training seems to have worked in WWII (and WWI for that matter): 12 to 17 weeks from diddy-bopping on the block to shipping out ..... yet those guys received instruction in hitting targets beyond 300 meters .... Granted, we (Us, U.S.) paid a huge price in blood for our abbreviated training, and our superior logistics, superior communcations, mechanization, and nigh complete air supremacy had more to do with victory than our infantry marksmanship ..... our soldiers were generally better shots than the enemy, on average.

These days, with the extreme emphasis on "Force Protection" , why would it be a bad thing to have every Infantry soldier armed with hardware and a skillset that could reliably kill the enemy two times as far away as his opposite number could do the same on any but his luckiest day? I know the psychological disadvantage of knowing the enemy has a better effective range than you do: the reports of Iraqi units we were facing were armed with the South African G5 guns, which out ranged our guns by 5 miles.... if they had the C3I to exploit that advantage and the ADA to defend it, that would have been important ...... I saw firsthand what the M1a1 Abrams crews did with that "kill the enemy 2X as far away as he could kill you" advantage.....

Answer me that: Would it really be all that expensive (in time and money) to train and equip our 11 series guys to shoot effectively to 600? It seems cheaper than the alternative.

And if not, why not?
 
I don't know but I wonder if it is even possible and if there is a point to it. After all, there is probably not going to be much fighting by the infantry with rifles at 600 meters. The enemy isn't that much better than our side, I don't think, although they do have some advantages. Most soldiers would have a lot of difficulty spotting targets at 600 meters. That'd probably be a bigger problem than making hits. Even if they became good at it, the other side would start doing something different and you'd have to start all over again.
 
Answer me that: Would it really be all that expensive (in time and money) to train and equip our 11 series guys to shoot effectively to 600? It seems cheaper than the alternative.
Click to expand...

I think the key to this is going to be in developing the optics to the point that the training is not needed and then, maybe, a change in rounds.

My prediction is the development of auto ranging, auto compensating HUD type sights that move the reticle to compensate for drop/drift along with a caseless or lighter weight round that will reduce the weight of the rounds to the point that an increase in effective range will be possible without increasing the weight of the total loadout.

How long it takes to get to this? I don't know. I figure the optic will get there before the round will though.
 
Let us assume for a moment that the designated marksman has an adequate rifle equipped with good optics and chambered for a cartridge capable of engaging cooperative targets at distant targets.

Should there be more designated marksmen? Say, twice as many?
Is whatever rifle the designated marksman is issued good and well liked?
How are the designated marksmen selected and what sort of training do they receive?
Is the squad automatic in 5.56 a useful weapon? Would the 7.62 machine gun be a better option at squad level?
Do you think the 7.62 machine guns within a rifle company are skillfully used?
Is there a .50 caliber rifle in an infantry company? If so, is it useful?
Finally, what would you do to reduce a foot soldiers burden by ten or fifteen pounds? Sorry; had to ask at least one hard question.

I am not asking these questions to be critical and I know they sound like questions at the end of a manual on company level infantry tactics. But I'm just trying to get a handle on the current thinking on these subjects. Please say whatever you like and as much as you like. If some subjects are controversial, meaning only that there is are widely held differences of opinion on a particular point, by all means say so. I no longer have a dog or a son in the fight. This is just all for discussion among gun enthusiasts, not advice for the war department.
 
I was issued an M14, M4, and mossburg 12 guage. The M14 had wood furniture, no bipod, and a leopold 3x9 hunting scope on it...no moa reticle, no target turrents. M14 is good in the ling range role, but I'd hate to of had to use it close up.

As far as training, I did a 2 week DM course with my M4 where I shot so much I literally got a blister on my trigger finger. That course was for general marksmanship. One week of crazy CQB, and one of long range. CQB was improved stances, reflexive firing without "using" our sights (just front sight post) and shooting while moving. We shot standing at 100m, kneeling at 200, and prone for 300-600 for long range. Working on improving our stances and posistions. The course was taught by some shooters from the president's 100.

The first deployment (when we had M14's before we deployed) we did KD ranges out to 1000m.

Selection is made by top shooters on qual range.

The 7.62 (240B) is heavier, harder to control unless you're prone, and ammo is heavier. We only got the M249 (5.56) after doing a swap with some POG's. Basically we gave our mechanics some M4's for their 249's cause all they did was carry them to the chowhall and back anyway. I didn't get formal training on a 249 until I became sn instructor and had to teach it.

Skillfully or properly? I was a scout, not a grunt...so I don't know how they use it, but as a scout we left that heavy @!#* mounted on the stryker unless we were doing an OP and thought we'd need the firepower. Its just a beast to carry.

Rifle? No. Machine gun, yes. Well...some inf snipers have them. I used them a few times when EOD would let us borrow it or SF left toys on our FOB. the only time I had to use it in combat was to take out vehicles fleeing from a blackmarket gunshow. We knew they'd run so we set up accordingly. That was the biggest pain in the @ss. Longest 2 miles I ever had to walk too.

Swap from IBA to a plate carrier with dragon skin instead of 4 seperate plates.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the excellent reply.

It sounds odd that an M4 was used in the DM course. That sort of made it sound more like a division battle school than a DM school.

I may have already mentioned this somewhere already in this thread but my son was a tanker and they even sent men on a DM course. They even received a .50 caliber rifle, which they didn't keep. He also said the best shots were the ones that went on the course and that the best shots tended to be guys from the country. No surprise there, I suppose.
 
Scouts arn't MTOE'd M14's. Its one reason we have such a hard time getting sniper school. You only get the weapons you're mtoed for. Same thing with M249. We didn't have them, so we traded the mechanics for theirs.
 
Gentlemen and ladies, if present: allow me a mild diversion here. We are up to almost seven pages now and the tone of discussion has been splendid. I'd just like to thank each of you for that.
 
semi problematic said:
Scouts arn't MTOE'd M14's. Its one reason we have such a hard time getting sniper school. You only get the weapons you're mtoed for. Same thing with M249. We didn't have them, so we traded the mechanics for theirs.
Click to expand...

And this is indicative of the failures of the modern day training program as a whole.

Traditionally, Cav Scouts are supposed to range out ahead of the main armored force looking for the bad guys and killing thier scouts, mounted in our Bradleys. Well, in the big sandbox it doesn't work way, yet we are still constricts by our T&OE saying no PDM, so therefore no rifles with good optics.

And this reflects the program as a whole, because at the end of the day, the soldiers job is to kill the bad guys, and to facilitate the killing of the bad guys. That ability shouldn't be constricted by prior notion of what the mission should be.

(We wrangled ours from the HHC for use outside the wire.)
 
I don't quite follow what you're saying Mr 618. Soldiers can't establish their own mission, after all. In any event, however, I was under the impression that the designated marksman equipment was issued quite liberally within the army on deployment. My son claimed his unit was, which was a tank outfit and which makes my information both second hand and dated. But as he put it, they didn't think it was useful given their mission--on that deployment. On their previous deployment, they did not operate with their tanks. In that case at least, the preconceived notion of what the mission of a tank unit was went out the window.

Although obviously authorized a lot of gear, they didn't retain all of it. Some issue equipment was never taken out of the shipping containers. Thre is frequently some slippage, shall we say, between what the TO&E says and what they actually have. They may also have captured equipment but I also understand captured equipment was not generally used or even highly thought of. So much for my theory that the other side always has better weapons.
 
BlueTrain, please call me Mack, everyone else does.

No, Soldiers cannot define thier own mission, however, when we are given a mission outside of our normal parameters, such as being used in what is traditionally an infantry(like full on 11B infantry, kinda miffed we didn't rate the CIB style infantry role) mission, we should be allowed to use the weapons and gear necessary for that role. However, seeing as how our T&OE did not permit certain weapons (PDM rifles mainly) we were not issued them, despite being in the midst of conflict in which such weapons were most useful.

We were chained and constrained by our T&OE, and further more by the Army belief that if we weren't issued it, then we didn't need it.

Which also explains, to me atleast, the view point, of "oh, 300 meters in Basic and whatever training you get in AIT is most suffecient and no need to worry about training on your weapon system again" mindset, that in my experience, prevails across most of the Army.
 
I will have to take your word for what the army now thinks of training. While it is true that you may not be issued everything you believe necessary (or want), it is just as likely that you may be issued something you don't consider necessary either and will never use.

My army vocabulary is out of date by about 40 years. What is a PDM rifle?
 
Let's rewind 10-12 years before KBR and the T-walled fortified FOBs and outposts. Mechanics were in the movements and manned machine guns. Once a base camp was set up, mechanics and such staffed the perimeter. Before Blackwater, mechanics and other MOS's performed security details. That's why the tables have equipment that doesn't seem necessary right now.

There was many training opportunities, but many NCOs chose to let their troops have spades tournaments instead. Aside from field exercises, training was scheduled on a weekly basis in which the NCOs had much leeway in the subject matter presented. You can teach marksmanship without live ammo. So any of you still on active duty, you can take advantage of down time and have your troops dry firing and such.
 
Platoon Designated Marksman. The guy with the long gun in a platoon.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the "old" SDM- the Squad Designated Marksman .... the guy with the long gun in the squad.

Progress?

Once upon a time, we had one carbine, an automatic rifle/LMG and a bunch of M-14's in a squad .... then we had a bunch of guys w/carbines and one guy with an M-14 in a squad...... now we have a whole Platoon of guys with the carbines, and one guy with the long gun......

hmmmmm.... I see a trend........

At what point will we have a whole Division of guys armed w/ 5.7mm pdw's and one guy with a rifle?
 
I have many times voiced my extreme disapproval of 5.56 weapons and my experience in Afghanistan... Keep in mind troops have limited round selections and in general whatever can of ammo is placed in front of you.

That said given the current state of our technology I see no reason why upper receivers couldn’t be bought to allow the use of 6.5 or 6.8mm in environments when longer range and/or greater penetration is needed. Possibly allow each company up to 5 or 10 uppers that solders can voluntairly choose to use.. Yes its great to have a ton of rounds in remote places or on top of a mountain but in all truth the military has the assets to deliver ammo almost anywhere.. Its not so hard to drop ammo cans out the door of a blackhawk in places you cant get too close due to wires or buildings etc..

Were not facing a Soviet style cold war anymore and the considerations of how many bullets on how many trucks just doesnt have quite the same emphasis anymore.. I would have gladly lugged a heavier weapon, just give me somthing that shoots through mud walls more often than not.
 
Semi Problamatic

Back in 94 I was in Somalia, teaching my fellow troops how to use the M249 Saw. We did that, as part of our training to take something you had a good understanding of and give a period of instruction.
I was good with that weapon. When you mentioned that it brought back memories.
Its a fine light Machine Gun.
 
I'd like to see what round development could come out of 24 caliber concept with powder capacity roughly half way between 6.8 and .308 Win. I am guessing around 85 gr. bullet 34 or 35 gr. of powder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top