You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
M4 Vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?
2010-05-26
Despite the ages-old rifles in Taliban hands, reports suggest our soldiers may be outgunned in Afghanistan's hills. To counter, the Army plans a slew of upgrades to curtain weapons -- and several entirely new guns.

Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are attacking U.S. Army soldiers with AK-47s, while the army relies upon the M4 Assault rifle. The AK-47 uses a larger bullet, which leads to more kickback upon firing. Some reports indicate that the U.S. Army is looking to upgrade the weapons being used in Afghanistan to larger caliber guns.

An AP report published over the weekend in Army Times argued that the M4 rifle's light bullets lack sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights. The report states that the U.S. is considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round, one largely discarded in the 1960s.

"What's the right caliber?" asks Jim Battaglini, executive vice president with Colt Defense and a retired major gen with the U.S. Marine Corps. "The debate has been ongoing for over 40 years, with pros and cons for all options being considered."

Factbox: The M4 and AK-47 Compared

The 7.62mm round in the AK-47 is heavier and larger than the 5.56mm caliber bullet in the M4, and can therefore fly further on average. But Battaglini dismisses reports that the Army is considering rearming soldiers in Afghanistan. "On the battlefield, there are no reported operational issues with the M4. It's the weapon of choice in Iraq, and still the desired weapon in Afghanistan," he told FoxNews.com.

Colonel Douglas Tamilio, project manager for Soldier Weapons in the Army's Program Executive Officer (PEO) Soldier division, downplayed the report too, as well as the significance of discussions about adopting larger caliber weaponry.

"You look at the fight you're in and decide, do I need to go back and do that?" But Tamilio is unswerving in his loyalty to the M4, calling it simply better than the Ak-47.

"To me there is no comparison. The M4 is inherently much more accurate than the AK-47," he told FoxNews.com. Tamilio explained that there are far more factors at play in determining the lethality of a weapon than mere caliber.

"We look at the ability of our soldier to incapacitate a target based on the weapon he's carrying, the recoil, the round the weapon is chambered for, what situation the soldier is in, how many rounds can he carry, his training, does he have optics on him ... there are so many variables that determine lethality."

"They're different system, difficult to compare," agreed Daniel Wasserbly, land forces reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly. He points out other differences, such as the shorter barrel in the M4, which makes it somewhat more geared to urban combat and the close-in battles of Iraq than the more open warfare in Afghanistan.

"But all the M4s have fairly advanced optics, which really add to their capabilities," he told FoxNews.com.

Col. Tamilio, who's PEO group is responsible for developing, fielding and sustaining new weapons, explained that the M4 has evolved substantially over the years, and that new upgrades and even new guns planned for this summer should dramatically enhance our soldiers' capabilities.

For one thing, U.S. special forces will be given a new supergun this summer, the XM25 grenade-launcher, which is capable of showering the Taliban with grenades from more than 700 meters away.

To address the issue of snipers, there's the M14EBR, a 7.62 caliber rifle designed to handle the recoil from big bullets better. That gun will be accurate to 800 meters.

"It's not the AK-47s putting a significant threat on our soldiers, it's the sniper rifles," Tamilio said, citing the Soviet era guns capable of killing from 600 to 700 meters away. "We need the ability to answer back to those."

His division took old M14s and made them like new, added new stocks, rails, bipods, and powerful optics to create a new gun.

"It's not a sniper weapon, but it's pretty damn close to it."

PEO also plans enhancements to the M4, adding to the 62 improvements the U.S. Army has made to the M4 since it was released. The Army has over 500,000 M4s in its arsenal.

Tamilio's group has improved the ammunition for the guns, upgrading the standard 855 round to the 8551a, "which strips away the dependency on yaw and made it more consistent." The new rounds should be in guns in Afghanistan this summer, along with barrels 5 oz heavier, for increased sustained fire.

He also cites plans for a new bolt and an improved adapter, called a Picatinny rail, which allows mounting of flashlights, lasers, and so on. Why upgrade a weapon that's "outgunned"? Tamilio flat-out disagrees with the characterization.

"The M4 is getting a bad rep, and it's an unfortunate thing. It's the best weapon in the world today. "
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#9  sorry #8 should be in a different thread.....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-05-26 18:27  

#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  

#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  

#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  

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

Always has, always will.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2010-05-26 15:48  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

00:00