Re: XM-8 Rifle

ssnark_at_bangserver.na
Date: 06/06/04 

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:51:49 GMT

"Tony Williams" <Tony.Williams@quarry.nildram.co.uk> wrote
in message
news:e64faab.0406022305.2fd3b760@posting.google.com
> "ssnark@bangserver.na" <ssnark@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>
news:<dBQuc.18568$be.7762@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>.
.
>>
>> The ballistics of the 30-06 M2 Ball cartridge versus the
>> 7.62 NATO M80 Ball cartridge speak for themselves here.
In
>> a slow fire situation such as when picking off an enemy
at
>> distances greater than 250 meters the better performance
of
>> the 30-06 will tell. It's not "miraculous" it's called
>> ballistics.
>
> In fact, while the .30-06 has a better potential
performance due to
> its larger case capacity, there isn't a significant
difference between
> the standard military loadings. The 7.62x51 was designed
to equal the
> performance of the military .30-06, using new ball powders
to reduce
> the case size needed.
>
I'm not sure which ballistic tables or calculator you're
using but last I looked in my range book the 7.62 NATO was
doing about 2250fps from the muzzle of an M1A Supermatch and
the 30-06 was doing about 2700fps from the muzzle of a Match
M1 Garand. Which sure seems like a significant difference
according to the ballistic calculator I'm using.

>> As to your "general issue" when the M1 was the general
issue
>> rifle an infantryman had to qualify out to a distance of
>> 1000 yards. When the M14 was issued the distance was
>> changed to 800 meters. Currently with the M16/M4 that
range
>> has been reduced to 400 meters for the infantryman. If
we
>> trained US Soldiers for marksmanship rather than
firepower,
>> I have no doubt that the skill level of our infantry
would
>> improve with the change in training and expectations.
>
> This has been the cry of the rifle enthusiast for at least
a century,
> but it's never got anywhere. In war after war, careful
analysis of the
> actions has shown that 90% of rifle fights take place
within 300
> metres, and the average distances for inflicting rifle
wounds is 100m
> or less. This is not just because most soldiers find it
hard to shoot
> straight in the stress of battle (a very different matter
from
> performing on the rifle range) but also because in most
environments,
> targets are often difficult to locate at closer ranges due
to terrain,
> vegetation or buildings, plus the fact that they are
wearing
> camouflage.

I disagree, with the exception of MOUT and close jungle type
warfare I think that the statistics you quote reflect
findings after WWII done by the US Army (who wanted to
change to smaller lighter weapons at the time) and in my
limited experience in warfare (Southeast Asia, Panama, El
Salvador, Columbia, parts of Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan)
do not necessarily apply given modern training techniques
The part about difficulty in shooting under combat versus
range conditions may hold some truth. But the rest is
probably rationalization rather than reality. Most of the
problems I've noted have been in learning to ID a target
through heat mirages, dust, and other environmental/weather
conditions that make target acquisition difficult. Skills
that can be taught and learned.

 And when they are spotted, they are usually moving fast
> from one bit of cover to the next.
>
At least ideally right?

> The soldiers currently serving that I hear from say
long-range rifle
> fire is a waste of ammo unless you're a sniper. If they
spot
> long-range targets, they just call up the mortars - much
more
> effective.
>
My experience as one of those Soldiers is quite the opposite
and most of those I served with were of a similar opinion.
The US Army has apparently also come to that conclusion and
issues M14 rifles designated to unit marksmen (M24 and M21
rifles go to snipers) for the express purpose of engaging
targets at a distance.

The ROE for the US Army in Iraq don't allow for your tactic
of calling in mortars that you suggest in most of the areas
where combat is occurring in order to minimize civilian
casualties and collateral damage. In Afghanistan above
10,000 feet where a fair amount of the fighting occurs,
mortar fire undergoes some interesting changes as the rounds
tend to loft a bit more than they would at sea level. IIRC,
the British units in our AO had little success with them and
actually didn't bring them into the mountains of the Hindu
Kush because of the need to recalculate the ballistics of
the charges. Instead, relying on US CAS assets to perform
the functions of artillery support.

Snark

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the M-16 development/ball powder/jamming story- part I
    ... #AR-15, was the most reliable, and the most lethal, infantry rifle ever ... #Nearly a century before American troops were ordered to Vietnam, weapons ... The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet ... support fire. ...
    (rec.guns)
  • Re: Can somebody please help JohnJohnsn out?
    ... first developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov. ... To fire, the operator inserts a loaded magazine, moves the selector ... Rifle weight is 4.2 kg. ... weapon, and prices have fallen in the last few decades due to mass ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Optimal rate of fire.
    ... Assuming well trained troops: ... A bolt action rifle is preferable to an automatic or semi-automatic. ... fire less rounds more accurately. ... magazines between 5 and 10 rounds being the norm for all ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Muggle Weapons & Events
    ... One Muggle with a rifle, and properly trained in its use, would ... and has a low rate of fire. ... Middle Ages it was mostly used by professional soldiers (Flemish ... The footsoldiers of the English army were ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: 35
    ... custom built rifle. ... #would fire form the brass. ... bullet into the case and then, single loading, seat the bullet home ... bullet fits tightly in the case neck. ...
    (rec.guns)