US rifles not suited to war in Afghan hills

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_bullet_wars

the solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Semi-Automatic_Sniper_System

 

The M16/M4 is an awesome rifle for CQC and jungle warfare but in the types of battlefields like Afghanistan, a larger caliber rifle is needed imo. I strongly suggest the LWRC REPR.

 

My M4 never let me down and in the right hands you can hit point targets at 600M.

 

The M110 is ok, but not with the BS taht Knight puts on them (cant do depot level maint., issues with failure to feed/cycle) and price. The M14, H&K 417, and LWRC & POF are better options IMHO. I personally want nothing to do with KAC after what I saw at the team, he makes good handguards, but thats about it. My M4 never let me down, and my M1A is a LOT more reliable.

 

I somewhat agree with this article. I do have a problem with the idea of going straight to an entire new platform vs trying higher grade rounds. I doubt the 7.62 will ever again become the main round of our arm forces for two reasons. 1 is cost. Secondly, has anyone seen how the army recently changed their boot camp style so it fit the new softer generation. M4/M16 is a very easy gun to shoot and works in the hand of this generation well. I don't think the there is an argument between the 762 and 556. We all know their capabilities and limitations but Do you all think that we should adopt a new round other than those two or do you think make the switch to 7.62 or stick with the 556?

 

I like the idea of having squad level DM's and platoon level snipers with 7.62 while the bulk of the troops have 5.56 (with 203 & 12 ga.), you get the best of both worlds. The 5.56 is a very capable round, I like the ballistics on .77 grain a lot. 7.62 is excellent as well. Not to knock the Army, but I like how the Marines focus on making riflemen. The argument could be made that its not the size of the bullet, but where you place it on target. (4.6mm is a great little round)

 

I very much agree. 77 grain would carry more mass. And maybe go from 14.5 to 16". I think that would be rather negligible in hummer transitions and the combination of the two could add another xxx meters. I'm no ballistics expert but I do know training. Mold these children into rifleman. Stop streamlining the pansy system. No offense to anyone army past or present. I for one have little formal arms training but I know of Marine training comparative to army training. Little brother in army and tons of friends in the marines. Id like to hear first hand from the battlefield commanders as opposed to sectional quotes on a yahoo article.

 

My M4 never let me down, and my M1A is a LOT more reliable.[/quote]


I want an M1A....

 

I love my M4. This whole "replacement" thing has been going on for years and honestly I don't see a change coming for another 20 years...The SAW, for some odd retarded reason may be getting replaced for a smaller, lighter, magazine fed (most likely by FN) automatic weapon before the M4 will. Spec Ops has been testing shit in and out for years...the XM8, SCAR, etc...all of which getting bad reviews, most of which wanting their M4 back. What I see is an alteration to the M4, which is already come out but the nomenclature escapes me. In a 6.8 caliber, shorter barrel, piston system. The M4/M16 has served me well the past 4 years and honestly I hope it serves me for another 16.

 

i'm not doggin the 5.56 round...it works for what it's designed for. (originally a 20" barrel M16 configuration) the increasingly shorter barrels employed by our armed forces account for a lack of performance of the round to get a first shot kill, and is clearly not sufficient for 800 meter enguagments in the Afghan mountains.

i'm not advocating the M110 either.

i'd much prefer to see these regain popularity again:

 

I want one.... A bit too pricey for me right now with all the extra funds going to mods for my Taco... Might have to sell something.

 

M14 is a great rifle but too big and bulky for the tight quarters of an afghan village.

 

Am I the only one who sees a problem with an action of a weapon being open to the elements. When the military began test on the M16 guess which rifle jammed more in their testing. The M14.

 

Theres a reason the M14's are being put back into service with the Army and Marines. (The Navy has used them for a while now) I'll say that I've had FAR MORE failures and stoppages on an M16/M4 platform that with an M14 or my M1A. They also said that the M16 was self cleaning.....

 

Yes they did...45 years ago.

 

I am sure you know the full story behind that. It was never billed as a self cleaning rifle by Stoner during the testing phases. It wasn't until it was put in the field that the Pentagon said it was a self cleaning rifle.

 

Never had any problems with my M4, but I also never realistically thought I'd hit someone center mass at 700m and watch him go down. Just doesnt happen like that. AT longer ranges we used 240's until we got our 60mm on them, our 60mm until we got arty... KAC has sold out and their new stuff is crap. I am also alarmed that the Corps is trying to replace the SAW

 

Anyone have info or pics on this saw replacement?

 

HK IAR

 

And its a horrible mistake. Try suppressing the enemy with only 30 rounds on auto Nothing will replace a good belt fed machine gun, that thing is just an excuse to spend money.