Xm - 8

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by Greenhat
There have been failures to stop from the 7.62mm NATO round, the old .30-06, and even the .50 BMG.

Not really what I'm getting at. Knockdown is always a factor, but I'm with NDD on this point: yeah, there's a difference, but the first, second, and third factor is shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement, and then and only then knockdown. It doesn't matter how powerful the rifle you're shooting if you can't hit what you're aiming at.

I'm just advocating the point expressed to me by several friends coming back from OIF... that being, the desire for a rifle that can (accurately) cover more ground, and penetrate a bit more. I'm not a party to the Hackworth-type group bitching about the 5.56 as a 'mouse gun'... it's more than sufficient to put someone down, and keep him there. What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4.

--Dan

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
Not really what I'm getting at. Knockdown is always a factor, but I'm with NDD on this point: yeah, there's a difference, but the first, second, and third factor is shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement, and then and only then knockdown. It doesn't matter how powerful the rifle you're shooting if you can't hit what you're aiming at.

I'm just advocating the point expressed to me by several friends coming back from OIF... that being, the desire for a rifle that can (accurately) cover more ground, and penetrate a bit more. I'm not a party to the Hackworth-type group bitching about the 5.56 as a 'mouse gun'... it's more than sufficient to put someone down, and keep him there. What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4.

--Dan

It isn't the M-4, it is the short barrel and the ammo. The M855 is guilty of poor accuracy, and the short barrel reduces velocity and therefore the lethality of the ammo at anything beyond point blank ranges. We currently have a 3-5 moa load with the primary wounding function limited to no more than 150m. or so.

They don't like the ability to put the bullet where they want it with the current rifle and ammo, wait till they get a 12" barrel and the new lead-free "green" ammo. Welcome to a sub-100 m. killing weapon and 6 moa ammo.

The right direction is limiting the number of soldiers with M-4s and carbines, and going to the 77gr. Mk 262, Mod 2 ammo while looking for a better ammo solution. Look at the success of the SPR with that ammo.

FYI, the 7.62x51 M80 Ball is no more effective than the 5.56x45 on average, and is less so when the 5.56 fragments.

Too many people offer opinions without data to support their conclusions. Be wary of who you listen to. HTH.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Even with highly trained troops, a large portion of the ammunition expended in certain tactical situations is not into targets (suppressive fire or other uses). Reducing the number of rounds that can be carried is not a viable solution in my opinion. It is definitely not a viable option on an Army wide basis (read Citizen Soldiers by Ambrose - the number of situations where soldiers ran low or out of ammunition is striking).

Mmmm. Why do WWII and Jeff Cooper keep coming into my mind? Whoops! The Art of the Rifle just fell off the bookshelf. You could have a point, tactics may be the problem.

Every man is a combination Squad Machinegunner/Squad Marksman. Neither of which they do very well.

I guess I'm a dinosaurio. I still think supressive fire should be laid down by the SAW (term generic) while the fire team uses bounding overwatch to engage at carbine and grenade distances as the marksman engage specific targets to eliminate key personnel.

alas, my time has come and gone.

[Bill Harsey]

That's why these gun makers often fail at knifemaking. From this discussion it seems like they are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of further refining what they already have. I'm big on all possible refinements of solid existing product design before it gets thrown away to work on "glamorous" projects.

[ktek01]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4.

--Dan

That is why I would like to see the HK with a 20" barrel, and M193(?, CRS) ammo. IMHO the biggest problem is training, or rather the lack of training, and using M855 in a weapon it wasn't designed for. IIRC M855 was developed for the M249, and does not appear to work well with the short barrel M4. The only reason I can think of why they switched was to simplify the supply chain, with no consideration for performance. The M4 is a fine weapon when used for the application it was designed for and with ammo designed for it. The M16 is also a fine weapon, and is what I think most soldiers should be carrying, with the 20" barrel and the proper ammo. I would like to see an HK version as the new issue rifle. Hack is still an idiot, most of what he claims the XM8 can do that makes it so much better can also be done with the M16/M4 especially with the picatinny rail system. To sum up, M16/M4 with HK's gas piston system, weapons matched to the ammo, and increased live fire training, and when you have a system that works buy new weapons when they wear out instead of lookng for something new, that would get us where we need to be IMO.

[DanUCSB]

I'll hold out hope for the XM-8 if we can get a long barrel put on it, and some decent ammo to put through it. I know, I know, why not just fix what we have and save whatever huge amount of money we're spending on XM; I agree. But I have a distinct feeling it's inevitable now; like an earlier poster said, the politicos want to get something out of the whole OICW debacle.

At least the XM-8 is a good start in making new items lighter, rather than heavier (although, it's probably because it's a snubbie).

--Dan

[Smokin Joe]

Dan-

You said in a earlier post that guys are coming out of OSUT not knowing certain (IMO) key elements

1. Not knowing how to zero an M16/M4
2. Never shooting or not nowing how to shoot the M240 (b/c they were doing kp or whatever else that day)

To you all-

What the hell are they teaching in OSUT. I know there are a ton of elements to be taught to an individual who is in OSUT but I think if you are in the infantry or some other combat MOS you should be able to effective manipulate, fire, zero, and clean every weapon you or your mos may need to use. Including the AK-47, as it is the perfered weapon of the enemy.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't these skills paramount to your very survival?

I thought I read some where on here that the army is now going to be doing some new wize bang HSLD "intense" "acclerated" training as a trial for some infantry OSUT. That includes the teaching of head space and timings for the 50, more shooting of the 240 and 249. Or something to that effect.

I don't want to talk smack about your Gentlemen's house but seriously how or what are recruits being taught in OSUT? Maybe less time should be concentrated on cleaning and mopping the barracks and more time on the range?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

[NousDefionsDoc]

Sensitivity classes

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Sensitivity classes

You gotta be shit'en me

[DanUCSB]

The line that I got over and over again from new privates coming out of infantry OSUT was that, the attitude from Benning was "We'll train you to be a soldier here, and you learn to be an infantryman when you get to your unit." Which was terrible, because it set in a permanent disconnect: all the privates came out, looking to learn their actual job at the unit, and at the unit, all of us were expecting to get new guys that knew how to do their jobs.

I remember when I was in OSUT (this is 1997... I'm young ), we got one day of land-nav, one day of battle drills (all of them), and one day of squad tactics... except, the cadre on that day decided it was too cold, and so led us into the woods and sat us all down and just bullshitted with us all day.

I'm not sure of the solution. You can leave everything as it is but make OSUT longer to fit additional training; you can cut out 'extraneous' or obsolete training in order to add more combat/weapons training; add more FTXes, and do more on them (I remember scratching out a hasty and sitting in it for about five days on our only FTX).

How about this. If you (question open for everyone) could remake OSUT to your own plan, how would you do it? Would you modify what we already have? Scrap it and start with a whole new paradigm?

--Dan

[DanUCSB]

Wouldn't shit you, Joe, you're my favorite turd. (too easy)

But yeah, partially. The trend in the last decade or so has been to adding sensitivity/values/morals/awareness classes, at the expense of trigger time.

--Dan, insensitive

[NousDefionsDoc]

The solution is to send 7 Green Hats to work as Drill Sergeants at Ft. Benning.

[DanUCSB]

Would that be considered 'Host Nation military assistance'?

--Dan

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
Wouldn't shit you, Joe, you're my favorite turd. (too easy)

--Dan, insensitive

Have you been hanging out with my dad your what (thats one of his favorite sayings)

Sensitivity training....and I thought infrantry OSUT was designed to take Joe civilian and give him the tools necessary to survive and win in combat right out of the blocks?

[Smokin Joe]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The solution is to send 7 Green Hats to work as Drill Sergeants at Ft. Benning.

Why only 7?