question about US army faction

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-11-17 18:40

Im glad this thread was not shut down like most Army threads seem to get. It seems to have given a lot of people the chance to clear some things up.

nicoX · Post by **nicoX** » 2007-11-22 21:50

In the USMC the M16A4 is the standard rifle. The US Army is using mostly M4s, though support units still have M16A2s floating around.

CDN-SMOKEJUMPER · Post by **CDN-SMOKEJUMPER** » 2007-11-23 01:10

Why is the army moving to a rifle with less muzzle velocity? Kind of odd if you ask me.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-11-23 01:59

More engagements at closer range in smaller environments. Muzzle velocity is no use if you can't point your barrel their way.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-11-23 02:32

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:M4A1's with an M68 on one side, Eotech on the other, an AMPEQ, a UGL, a supressor, a bipod, a microwave etcetc

and to keep up with Brit armoured cav, a coffee machine

CDN-SMOKEJUMPER · Post by **CDN-SMOKEJUMPER** » 2007-11-23 05:45

BloodBane611 wrote:More engagements at closer range in smaller environments. Muzzle velocity is no use if you can't point your barrel their way.

In the thread about the FN I mentioned that an Australian SAS member by the name of Jock Wallace and the 10th Mountain (I forget if they are Rangers??) during operation Anaconda, Afganistan where caught in Hell's Halfpipe where the Taliban pasted the Russians. They nearly got the Americans also and the problem they where having was that with his M4 he could not engage targets that where shooting at him.

Pretty much the only reason there where no deaths other than a blue on blue was the Spectre Gunships.

I would dare say that taking away long range capability is a bloody mistake like taking cannons off fighter jets was. I think this was a bad decision.

snipe_like_a_stone · Post by **snipe_like_a_stone** » 2007-11-23 06:02

well...its not just the m4...its more or less a collaboration of the poor muzzle length, plus the range of the 5.56.

honestly, the 5.56 (currently, as in m855 ball), is a short range high velocity, relatively low recoil fragmenting assault rifle round, which has had its range "increased" to 800m, its muzzle v. lowered, and its fragmenting range lowered as well to 150 yards with a FULL LENGTH barrel.

and with something like the M4, it wont fragment unless its in CQB, or under about 40 yards or so.

anything smaller and the round wont fragment at all, so the thing will just go right through you without causing much damage.

what the guy did need, was a full powered 7.62x51, like an FAL, or any other high powered rifle.

if the army wants to equip people with pea shooters, so be it. I am not joining them any time soon.

Post by **ZZEZ** » 2007-11-23 06:19

snipe_like_a_stone wrote:well...its not just the m4...its more or less a collaboration of the poor muzzle length, plus the range of the 5.56.

honestly, the 5.56 (currently, as in m855 ball), is a short range high velocity, relatively low recoil fragmenting assault rifle round, which has had its range "increased" to 800m, its muzzle v. lowered, and its fragmenting range lowered as well to 150 yards with a FULL LENGTH barrel.

and with something like the M4, it wont fragment unless its in CQB, or under about 40 yards or so.

anything smaller and the round wont fragment at all, so the thing will just go right through you without causing much damage.

what the guy did need, was a full powered 7.62x51, like an FAL, or any other high powered rifle.

if the army wants to equip people with pea shooters, so be it. I am not joining them any time soon.

???

1) 5.56 with M16A1 has 2km maximum range in perfect conditions.
2) M16A1 has effective range of 200m
3) Anyone that gets shot from a 5.56 rifle, or even a small pistol will drop on the floor and scream in pain.
4) Nobody needs a 7.62x51 FN FAL unless they like carrying allot of weight for a none automatic rifle, long and heavy rifles have plenty of disadvantages - as weapon decision is based on the expected mission.
picking one case that M4 didn't hit its target doesn't classify it as a pea shooter.

LeggyStarlitz · Post by **LeggyStarlitz** » 2007-11-23 06:39

And this is why the m14 has been reintroduced into the Army. One per squad with bipods and a nifty Leopold scope.

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-11-23 08:39

Cant we not have the old "M16 vs Every other long arm in the world" chestnut in this topic please? k, thnx, bye!

WNxKenwayy · Post by **WNxKenwayy** » 2007-11-23 17:51

[R-CON]ZZEZ wrote:???

1) 5.56 with M16A1 has 2km maximum range in perfect conditions.
2) M16A1 has effective range of 200m
3) Anyone that gets shot from a 5.56 rifle, or even a small pistol will drop on the floor and scream in pain.
4) Nobody needs a 7.62x51 FN FAL unless they like carrying allot of weight for a none automatic rifle, long and heavy rifles have plenty of disadvantages - as weapon decision is based on the expected mission.
picking one case that M4 didn't hit its target doesn't classify it as a pea shooter.

Oh god, the ignorance is palpable in this thread.

5.56mm in its current NATO form sucks at all ranges, period. It doesn't matter what its shot from, it blows. I've put round after round into a soft target and they didn't go down. This isn't some opinion or based off someone else's experience, this is my own, as well as every single platoon mate of mine. Its why we are taught to shoot "body body head" because that's what it takes with a 5.56mm to put someone down. 3 rounds minimum. Even then its chance whether they will stay down or not.

Now, on to your stupid 'answers' that make me cringe in pain at reading.

1. An m4 has a 'max range' which is when you take the gun, point it 45 degrees in the air, and pull the trigger, of 3600m, that's 3.6km. Max range has **** all to do with stopping power. For example, the 7.62mm NATO round has a max range of jst 3725m, or 3.7km a mere 125m more than the 5.56mm, yet is vastly more effective a round.

2. The m4 has a max effective range against a point target (single man sized target) of 550m. That means that is the range at which a soldier can effectively engage a single man sized target with a good chance of hitting it. It has nothing to do with whether it will actually put down the target or whether a soldier has the skill to actually hit something that far away.

3. No, they wont. They will twitch a bit, maybe miss a step, and keep on coming at you depending on where you hit them. A direct one to the heart or brain and yes they will drop, but that's shot placement and has nothing to do with the caliber. This is personal experience talking.

4. Wow, ig...nor...ant. Every chance I had I carried my m14 in Iraq. Even more so when we got the EBR kits for them as this reduced their length and added rail systems. With m4 I averaged a addition weight (that is above what I weight in just ACU's) of between 60-80 pounds depending on mission. A few extra for the ability to both put a target down first hit and to penetrate almost any cover (which the 5.56mm is famous for NOT doing) is well worth the added weight.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-11-23 18:42

Thanks, Kenway. And with that, the M4/M16 and 5.56mm issue shall be dropped, or this thread will be locked.

Post by **ZZEZ** » 2007-11-23 18:48

edited