US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

[Denis]

I thought this article was interesting from a technological and historical standpoint and worth posting for those reasons. I hope no one mistakes this for any sort of political stance on my part, for it is in no way intended that way.

US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
KABUL, Afghanistan – The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.
As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.
The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.
But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.
Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.
Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.
"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.
The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.
To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).
At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.
"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.
He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.
In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.
Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.
The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."
The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.
"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."
The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.
A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.
The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.
U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.
Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.
"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.
Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.
"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

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

[uwe]

Not surprising at all, the German forces have loads of stuff there that doesn't work like it should. As recent as ten years ago, before 9/11, no NATO nation envisaged ever to need to fight a war in a mountainous arid region like Afghanistan where there are neither forests nor cities. Afghanistan is a one-of-a-kind theater of war which perhaps explains why Brits, the Red Army and now NATO have all failed there.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't, that is what Afghanistan is now. I was in favor of the military intervention there and still am, but it comes at a hell of a price and progress, if any, is slow and often fleeting.

[nofi]

by definition the m-16 is a carbine due to the short barrel. the m-14 was great battle rifle in 30.06/308 nato. it was replaced by the m-16 because of it's much milder recoil and a less intimidating, more user friendly image for new us recruits.

[Denis]

Do squads/platoons now have a variety of weapons?

Back in WWII didn't each small unit have men equipped with Garands and/or M1 carbines, a BAR,  a .30 cal mg and sergeants and junior officers carrying Thompsons? Seems like variety was the spice of life and worked quite well, other than the obvious supply difficulty of a bunch of guys with different caliber guns (.30-06s, .30 cals and .45s).

[nofi]

your right about ww2 weapons. although my father at one point in burma had a burp/grease gun in.45 acp and a single action colt revolver in .45 long colt. (cowboy gun) later he had a .30 carbine which was considered a weak round compared to the m1 and bar.

[eb2]

There was a variety of weapons in Viet Nam as well. A lot of bolt action rifles were in the field.  They were less prone to jamming and fouling up in the jungle.  The VC used a lot of captured 98k rifles they got from the USSR. My neighbor gave me one - complete numbers mis-match, swastikas still stamped on it, and a home-made stock repair.  Nice relic.  I am not surprised that the weaponry would be problematic in Afghanistan.

[nofi]

my dad had a japanese rifle he brought home from the war. it's very similar to the german bolt action of the time but a little longer. i think the valiber was a 6.5mm, the same as lee harvey oswald's rifle.

[rahock]

I don't recall what caliber the Japanesse WWII rifles were either but I always wondered why Japan, who had the shortest soldiers, opted for the longest of rifles . It had to be difficult to manuver.
I had an old buddy who inherited the family owned gun shop several years ago and it was an amazing collection of WWI and WWII weapons from various countries, that included a boatload of rifles, submachine guns and even several 30 and 50 caliber machine guns, some of which were classified as anti-aircraft guns. He was licensed to sell just about anything outside of a freakin' atom bomb .
I never got to fire any of the stuff that was catagorized as anti-aircraft because most of them were on huge tripods with a seat built in and kind of cumbersome to transport to the range. I did get to play around with most of the rifles and submachine guns though and that was fun .
He had some Chinesse machine guns and submachine guns that were pretty rare and extremely primitive but worked real well. They looked like something that you would make in your garage out of bits and pieces left over from various houshold projects and machine shop scraps. The Brits had some very simple but effective submachine guns too. My favorites were the German and American made stuff . The Schmizer and the Thompson were two of my favorites. Thompsons were a really nice piece of work and it was a submachine gun you could actually aim, fire single shot and hit something, but they were also very expensive, the Schmizer was pretty cheap and took some getting used to , but they were very cool and real good in close quarters. As for the rifles, I liked them all, but the good old American M1 was a great weapon in a battlefield situation. I like the way the M1 carbine was sized and how it felt and the extra ammo it carried but it had limited capabilites. The regular old M1 and lot af ammo would be a much more versitle choice.
Gee whiz , I miss playing with guns .
Rick

[Lightyear]

The origanl M-14 was an adaptation of the M-1 Garrand and chambered for .308  It was very nice gun but heavy and the ammo was heavy.  The M-1 carbine was an attempt to make a weapon for officers with more range - they even made a holster for so that you could carry it on you belt - a bad idea as most holsters were never issued - I have NOS one that picked up a gun show years ago and store my M-1 in it.

[Nocturnal]

my dad had a japanese rifle he brought home from the war. it's very similar to the german bolt action of the time but a little longer. i think the valiber was a 6.5mm, the same as lee harvey oswald's rifle.

I have the same gun that my father gave me. When he was in high school, a friends dad gave him 3 of them and one bayonet. He gave me one of them a couple of years ago. Kind of a cool gun, but no ammo to try it out.

[Lightyear]

I have the same gun that my father gave me. When he was in high school, a friends dad gave him 3 of them and one bayonet. He gave me one of them a couple of years ago. Kind of a cool gun, but no ammo to try it out.

You can pick up ammo for it at most gun shows - I would not want to try it though     

I have two British Enfields that I shoot - one dates 1939 and one 1943 both are fantastic guns.  I also have a Remington P-19 that is chambered for 303 as well - a fantastic piece that I picked up for $65.

[eb2]

The Arisaka was a decent knock off of an early Mauser.  They are very nice rifles.  A lot better than the Russian WWII stuff that is starting to be sold over here in the bargain surplus bin, and I would prefer it to a Lee Enfield if I had to run around in a swamp.  I would take any 60+ year old rifle to a gunsmith before I did anything, but a nice tight Arisaka is a great shooter.  I have a bayonet for one, and it is long kind of the way the 03 Springfield bayonet from WWI was more or less a mountable sword.  Their are some interesting pics of Japanese soldiers with the whole rig, and the body size to rifle length ratio is pretty odd.

If you have a chance to thumb through an early 60s copy of Guns And Ammo or Guns magazines, you would be surprised at what you could have ordered through the mail right up to around November 22, 1963.  A German PAK gun? Sure.  Mauser 98k?  How about a case?  If you only had like $20 to spend tops, you could always have bought the Carcano.

[Lightyear]

The Arisaka is a lighter gun than the Enfield for sure.  The later Arisakas would be supsect for build quality due to the shortages that Japan suffered in the later stages of the war. 

The British did make a carbine cersion of the Enfield and a frined of mine owns a nice specimen - he has shot it once as have I - to call it painful was an understatement and I certain now why so many of them are in pristine condition

This gun is even slightly less painful to shoot than the Russian carbine he has.....

[sniper]

i owned a surplus still in cosmoline 03 made by smith corona with a peep sight. kicked like a mule so i traded it for a 357 lever action.

[Pilgrim]

I'm inclined to wonder what would happen if they just lengthened the barrel on the M16 to 20 inches.  Longer barrels allow higher velocity rounds, which might help to correct the problem.