US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

[eb2]

Well, I guess that rifle is suited to the area!  It seems as much a math problem as warfare.

[Pilgrim]

DANG!!!!!

Corporal of Horse Craig Harrison fired his consecutive shots from such a long distance that they took almost three seconds to reach their targets.

This was despite the 8.59mm bullets leaving the barrel of his rifle at almost three times the speed of sound.

The distance to his two targets was 8,120ft, or 1.54 miles - according to a GPS system - and about 3,000ft beyond the weapon's effective range.

To compensate for the spin and drift of the bullets as they flew the length of 25 football pitches, Cpl of Horse Harrison reportedly had to aim 6ft high and 20ins to the left.

THAT is some kinda shootin'!

[Highlander]

Pays to know the tools you are using... 

[Pilgrim]

Pays to know the tools you are using... 

To make a shot like that and to decide to hold 6 feet high and 20 inches wide is a level of marksmanship that most humans can't even aspire to.  That guy has another level of capability.

[Freuds_Cat]

And has a bizzare name to boot!   Corporal of Horse Harrison, from Cheltenham

[Basshappi]

Some U.S Special Forces units even use .357 magnum revolvers for special purposes, I'm kind of curious what type of application they are using them for, though I can imagine a few...or maybe I don't really want to know. But the point being that if the SEALs bring a revolver to the fight, then there is a damn good reason to believe that the ol' revolver offers something that can't be gotten any other way.

I grew up around guns and carry one every day and one thing that is readily apparent to anyone that knows guns is that no single type or caliber is universally applicable. The problem that is the focus of the article has been known for quite some time and IMO it is infuriating that our soldiers are being sent into a theather of combat with weapons known to be inadequate for the situation. I can understand and appreciate that logistics are an important considration in any military undertaking, but they should not override every other consideration and certainly not battlefield effectiveness.

[nofi]

m-16's are prone to jamming in the field. for that reason alone i would not trust one. i owned a colt ar-15 which is the civilian and law enforcement version of the m-16. it jammed several times the first time i ran a clip through it. (30 rounds) if i had to choose i would take an ak47 over an m16. battle proven by millions the world over.

[rahock]

You are definately not alone in choosing an AK-47  . That seems to be the choice of many.
Rick

[the mojo hobo]

m-16's are prone to jamming in the field.

That is simply not true. The first M-16s issued had problems because the DoD tried to economize on plating and powder. Once those issues were recogmized and fixed the M-16 became very reliable. I used one for a year in a hot humid and dirty enviorment and never had it jam. THe M-60 on the other hand was finicky. I believe now 40 years later the M-16 is still being used and the M-60 is not.

[the mojo hobo]

The problem that is the focus of the article has been known for quite some time and IMO it is infuriating that our soldiers are being sent into a theather of combat with weapons known to be inadequate for the situation. I can understand and appreciate that logistics are an important considration in any military undertaking, but they should not override every other consideration and certainly not battlefield effectiveness.

The reason everyone went to smaller rounds (even the AKs) is because the infantryman can carry more than twice as many of the smaller 5.56 rounds than the heavier 7.62 rounds. No, at long range they are no match for sharpshooter rifles, but for a highly mobile force short barrels and light ammo is desirable.

We have sharpshooters too. I guess everyone wants long range weapons, but do they want to carry heavier ammo? Life is full of compromises.

[eb2]

The Ak-47 was a reliable, cheap, rugged and idiot-proof weapon.  The Soviet mess couldn't figure out toilet paper and flour, but they kicked ass on weaponry and the T-34.  They also kicked ass with the PPSH-41, which many would argue was a preferable machine gun, including a lot of German soldiers in WWII who preferred it.  You could argue that the Thompson was just as rugged in as wide a variety of conditions.  Or the M3 grease gun, the Sten, or the wonderful MP-40.  So many quality designs.  But nobody worries about longer range and accuracy with one, so maybe I like that the Tommy will knock down anything it hits.

As far as weapons issued, this is as old a problem as war itself.  There is the bizarre but true tale from the early stages of WWII of Patton finding his issued tanks in such a sorry state that he bought spare parts out of his own pocket from Sears Roebuck.  Sears delivered when the US Army couldn't. 

[rahock]

The thompson was a great weapon but it cost over $300 to build back in WWII days and the grease gun cost a mere $16. In the Vietnam days the came up with a new and lighter thompson type weapon called the spitfire but there weren't too many ever put into action. They were pretty neat though. I handled a couple . Like the thompson , you could  put it on single shot, use the sight, and actually hit a target. Using something like a Mac-10 you simply fire from the hip and spray in direction of your target. I have tried to aim a Mac-10 at a pistol range, firing single shots, and at 35 feet I was able to hit the paper of the target a few times out of a 9 shot clip, but planting one in the bulls eye wasn't happening and I'm a pretty good shot.
Rick

[Pilgrim]

m-16's are prone to jamming in the field. for that reason alone i would not trust one. i owned a colt ar-15 which is the civilian and law enforcement version of the m-16. it jammed several times the first time i ran a clip through it. (30 rounds) if i had to choose i would take an ak47 over an m16. battle proven by millions the world over.

I wouldn't condemn any semi-auto firearm based on its behavior with the first couple hundred rounds.  Many firearms need to be "shot in" with a few hundred rounds in order to function as intended. 

Having said that, I have a Llama .22 Mark XV that's a miniature Colt 1911 - and it really is finicky about the ammo it likes.  That's not unusual for .22 semi-autos.  I had to try out some different loads to get reliable functioning.

[Lightyear]

They have reworked the trustworthy M-14!  One article I read said that they have near sniper like accuracy.  I first read about these in article about the rifle situation in Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Mod_0_Enhanced_Battle_Rifle

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Don't forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M21_Sniper_Weapon_System

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M39_Enhanced_Marksman_Rifle