Article

2010-05-26 Afghanistan

M4 Vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2010-05-26 13:09|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 I like the AR platform. It has its drawbacks, but it is inherently decent. The problem is the caliber.

The M4, M16, and M249 all use the 5.56x45 round (based on a .223 Remington). The round used (SS109) is accurate in the rifle, but it only (usually) puts neat holes through the target. It is great to hit the target you aim at, but disconcerting to have to hit him multiple times to get him to notice he has been hit (slight overstatement).

In Viet Nam, a different bullet and different rate of twist in the barrel was used, which gave a highish probability of the round not making a nice neat hole but instead leaving a rather large wound cavity. Or not; sometimes they would zip through too. That was then and this is now.

The 'AK-47' class of weapons use a 7.62x39 cartridge (roughly .30 caliber, the bullets tend to .310 OD). It is a relatively short cartridge of medium power. It is not that accurate as a cartridge, particularly when used in the AK-47 type weapons. But it is good enough, and plays into the AK's strength, which is being reliable with low maintenance. Plus, the .30 caliber round hits the target harder, allowing for one shot disabling of the target. More energy is able to be imparted to the target largely due to the difference in bullet diameter.

The solution is obvious - go to .30 caliber - and change nothing else but the cartridge and the barrel. This is already being done. Everything else remains the same, so logistical impact is small. We will see if it flies.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2010-05-26 13:46|| 2010-05-26 13:46|| Front Page Top

#2 it's interesting how we frame this debate into all or nothing, when we already have split ammunition logistics for 5.56 and 7.62.
Adding the new M-14 variant (my original USMC weapon) as an overwatch while keeping the M-4/16 for basic troop use and urban engagements. Nothing new in the zoo, just old reasoning revisited most of the time.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2010-05-26 14:31|| 2010-05-26 14:31|| Front Page Top

#3 Does the caliber and platform used by US forces really matter, if the ROE won't let you shoot the bad guys anyway?

Posted by Phusoger Ghibelline8348 2010-05-26 14:38|| 2010-05-26 14:38|| Front Page Top

#4 Maybe they will only issues "Restraint Medals" if you don't shoot at 300M or less?

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2010-05-26 15:01|| 2010-05-26 15:01|| Front Page Top

#5 M-series rifle + .223 ammo = suck.

Always has, always will.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2010-05-26 15:48|| 2010-05-26 15:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes, caliber matters. My preference has always been 7.62 and yes I miss the HOG.

5.56 is very dependable in range and speed of fire. Its far more accurate. 7.62 is what you use when you want to stop someone in their tracks. 5.56 is what you use if you want internal spaghetti - but the guy is usually still coming after you once shot and sometimes when shot multiple times.
7.62 is heaver to carry with both round and weapon. Advantage is with 7.62 - depending on weapon, is the fact that you could use the enemies ammunition in your own weapon. And many soldiers have run out of ammo and picked up a dedder's AK to use to stay non parished.
I am not on the ground so I have no say. I just do not want politicians making these decisions anymore.

What do they prefer in the farm? I suspect M-4 is the answer in which case - if it is good enough for them....

Posted by newc 2010-05-26 16:52|| 2010-05-26 16:52|| Front Page Top

#7 This debate was held a long time ago. It's better to have soldiers carry 6x5.56 magazines than 5x7.62 magazines. Throwing lead downrange is the issue.
Accuracy doesn't really matter because enemy casualties are not caused by small arms fire.

Posted by gromky 2010-05-26 18:12|| 2010-05-26 18:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Unless SKor is simply saying it can't find them so when they simply don't come home.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-05-26 18:21|| 2010-05-26 18:21|| Front Page Top

#9 sorry #8 should be in a different thread.....

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-05-26 18:27|| 2010-05-26 18:27|| Front Page Top

#10 Hits are what count with rifles, and you are more likely to hit someone using a M-4 than with an AK at anything over 200 meters. The major argument about 5.56mm is that it is too light and has a tendency to punch straight through -- not that you cannot hit someone with it. I would prefer if the US military went with the 6.8mm SPC II caliber but the M-4 series is a good rifle. So bump up the caliber but keep the rifle; changing from 5.56mm to 6.8mm requires a new upper receiver, a new magazine, and new ammo - NOT a new rifle.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2010-05-26 20:55|| 2010-05-26 20:55|| Front Page Top

#11 All good points. 6.8 is fine, mag issues, 6.5 is fine, no mag issues, fussy chamber tho, 7.62x44 only barrel and ammo change, too soon to tell if other problems, but 2950 fps ! 135 grain ! Only time will tell. If I were sitting inside a perimeter or humping short distance, the 7.62x51 M-14. Knock them down.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2010-05-26 21:47|| 2010-05-26 21:47|| Front Page Top

#12 #1 son was initially issued an M-16 on setting foot in Iraq. Hated it due to better portability/folding stock of M4. We bought him a laser site for Christmas, because it's what the baby Jesus would've wanted, and it was on his wishlist. He seems happy with the M4

Posted by Frank G 2010-05-26 22:13|| 2010-05-26 22:13|| Front Page Top

#13 6mm Winchester Super Short Magnum w/ 90 grain bullets. It's also compatible w/ .223 type actions. I'm not crazy about the 6.8's velocity and think the 6.5 Gendel's bullet is a bit too heavy for controlled automatic fire.

Posted by ed 2010-05-26 22:23|| 2010-05-26 22:23|| Front Page Top

#14 ION WAFF > WAKE UP CALL. France, Germany + Armed Forces rediscover in AFPAK what it means to fight a guerilla war agz a reslient Enemy, espec as per shortcomins of vital Mil Equipment, Sys + Logistics-Supply Flows.

NATO'S MAJOR POWERS GETTING OF THE COLD WAR RUST VIA BLOOD, SWEAT, INNOVATION + HANDS-ON.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-05-26 22:25|| 2010-05-26 22:25|| Front Page Top

#15 As far as I can tell from articles and discussions I read here, our guys shoot with their eyes wide open, the Afghans -- except for their snipers -- shoot with their eyes tightly closed and their guns pointed in almost random directions... so it seems to me in my ignorance that in this situation the bullet caliber and other details don't really matter.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-05-26 23:23|| 2010-05-26 23:23|| Front Page Top

00:00 logi_cal
23:32 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:30 49 Pan
23:23 trailing wife
23:16 rammer
23:14 Kojo Slinert9021
22:48 ed
22:48 GirlThursday
22:48 JosephMendiola
22:43 OldSpook
22:40 OldSpook
22:40 ed
22:38 OldSpook
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:35 OldSpook
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:34 Procopius2k
22:26 OldSpook
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:23 ed
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:13 Frank G
22:09 JosephMendiola
22:09 Frank G