This here is the end of the full auto debate, it’s about training and leadership not a 3 round burst band aid.
1 out of 4 in an Infantry team has an open bolt belt fed M249, we can somehow train him but can’t train the other three?
The extra barrel weight is silly when you can just pull extra material from the front of the barrel and move it to the failure point.
Im guessing who ever designs our rifles must play COD. “oh everyone wants full auto.” ya ill never use it just like i never use the burst option. the weight is a whole diffrent matter. with the acog, paq-4, sure fire and vert grip it already wieghs quite a bit so whats a little more:sarcastic:. oh and more ammo lol. i think they should work on more markmanship skills and not try to cover that up with “better” gear.
^ this.
M4, KAC rail, PEQ15, Acog, surefire (idk which model), grip-pod, LMT stock is pretty much standard issue in my unit. we weighed it back in Afghanistan, and it came up to around 12.4 lbs. but I haven’t set up my new weapon yet (new platoon)
can you elaborate more on this? it was my understanding that a thicker barrel held a tighter group at higher temperatures longer than the thinner barrels?
M855A1 really isn’t better than the alternatives.
I’m only speculating, I have no first hand knowledge of it at all. just normal M855 green tip
First time ever I’ve heard of someone not caring if their weapon is heavier. Especially out on the barrel, where it effects how quickly one can swing the barrel round at close-quarters.
I don’t remember the last time I did CQB. everything in Afghanistan is medium to long range, and if you drill enough with it (the heavier rifle), you’ll get used to it. hell if a SAW can enter and clear a room effectively (yes it has been done) a heavy barreled M4 can do it. not too much of a concern there. plus if the weight is under the handguard, the support hand can control it easier than if it were at the tip of the barrel (i.e. suppressor)
better gear comes from the big army, whereas marksmanship skills are honed at the squad level, so shouldn’t both be good? perhaps poor leadership leads to bad shooting. and 300 rounds was normal for my squad when we rolled out on patrol with another 800 in an assault pack along with MRE’s water and magazines :laugh:
Agreed. Always has and always will be a training/leadership issue. Money would be better spent on a more realistic marksmanship program, concentrating on multiple accurate hits.
snortThe same guys that decided grey was a fantastic color for a desert environment, or cityscapes that were built of masonry made of tan mud, and spent $5billion making every scrap of cloth into that abortion. Remember who we’re talking about…
MORE gear comes from Big Army, not better gear, to the point that that extra pound and a half that got scoffed at earlier isn’t just a pound and a half, it’s a pound and a half ON TOP of all the other weight…which is at or beyond the threshold for an actual assault load. New or more material isn’t the answer. That’s is mistaking movement for progress. Two different things.
Bearing in ind that carting around extra ammo, like water, is generally a self-solving problem (it gets used), marksmanship is supposed to be honed at the squad level. It is, in fact, not, else we’d be seeing better results for the ammo expended. Hence the reason folks always want to carry more ammo, because they can’t generally hit what they’re aiming at and end up needing the extra for the acoustic suppression they provide in lieu of hits.
It’s systemic, across the board, not limited to any one branch. The idea of Everybody a Rifleman is in the same realm as that of a land of cotton-candy clouds, caramel rivers, and shrubbery that dispenses a fine pilsner from broken branches.
I’ve heard the arguments of “Well, in MY squad/platoon/gaggle/pod…,” , and they don’t mean anything, since they don’t represent the trend. They prove the trend, because the individual small groups that do stand out on ly do so because everybody else around them is so truly, truly bad.
Bottom line, the problem isn’t the gun. It’s the loose nuts behind them, which is to say that the senior leadership of every branch has a lot to answer for.
Yeah, I’m with this guy.
The Army just keeps screwing the pooch with every chance it gets. I’ll keep my ACU comments out of this and stay on topic, I don’t really get why they’re making these “improvements” when they’re not increasing the training that’s the main problem. In only know what I’ve seen, which is the usual marksmanship training out to 300m. The bad guys know that we’re pretty ineffective past this and usually engage 500-700m out. Since everyone’s got ACOGs now shouldn’t we be training out to 500m, at least? I’ve NEVER shot an M4 past 300m in training, and the only rifle I’ve ever shot past that in training was the M14 at SDM school. Do we really think that only the M240B and M14 should be used at anything past 300m? Yes, SAWs are good well past that but again, we only shoot them out to 300m in training. The entire training program should be revamped so that everyone can successfully engage the bad guys out to the maximum effective range of their issue weapon. ACOGs are straight-up badass and every effective, but only with a proper zero and lots of training. Which few are getting. Hell, when we were overseas we re-zeroed our rifles once every 3-4 months, sometimes longer. We had people who switched weapons or had new optics with unzeroed weapons for MONTHS because our upper level leadership though ranges were a waste of time. If you look at this new “upgrade” combined with the new M855A1, ACU, the newish plate carrier, IOTV, and the fact that most grunts STILL can’t paint their weapon… EPIC FAIL fits the bill.
We’ve been fighting here for 9 friggin’ years and what have we really learned? Make it full auto with a heavy barrel 'cause that’s what the cool kids have? Sorry, they also get a lot more training.
Yeah but that doesn’t look as good on someone OER as fielding a new uniform and gun.
I was always amazed at the Cold War era training we were still getting in 2007. Hardly any of the training had been updated despite being at war since late 2001. We spent a full 50%+ of our time on NBC training, and hardly anything to do with any realistic things we’d be doing if deployed.
There are several issues at hand here. My two cents:
I do believe that the A1 FCG is superior to the three round burst mechanism. I find that the A1 has a more consistant trigger pull than the burst. I also am of the opinion that the A1 mechanism is simpler in its operation, making it easier to diagnose problems and get the weapon up and running faster. A1 FCG = Win.
The addition of the heavier barrel is not warranted. It adds weight to already heavily burdened soldiers. However, in this case I think we have a situation where a group is tasked with improving a carbine and changing barrel contour was an easy way for them to say: Look! Now with more auto! Heavy barrel = Fail
The small arms training issue. Most likely a different group of decision makers than the “improve the rifle group.” I think most on this board will agree that the troops need more training, from qualified instructors. The difficulty is in convincing the people that make money decisions about training that they don’t know what they don’t know. After all they are the ones in charge, they know best…right?
In the end I want the troops to have the best equipment possible. If full auto gives the infantryman the confidence he needs to close the last 500 meters, than so be it. Burning up all your ammo in an un-necessary fashion is a self-correcting behavior on the battle field. I think our troops are smart enough to figure that one out.
i agree whole hearted that training is the main issue. the only time ive shot past 300m is when im in a open field hunting. also i know alot of times training is rushed and last minute with an “every body passes not matter what” attitude. so some people are not recieving the correct amount of training in the ares they need it the most. unfortunatly the big wigs that make decsions(well most of them) havent got behind the trigger since basic.
The way the Army system of requisitioning training ammo is what I feel to be the major setback. The ammo needed for the unit to accomplish its annual training is forecasted in advance and based on the amount requested and expended the prior fiscal year. Unless another battalion is willing to give up ammo (not likely), you are pretty much stuck with the same amount you used the prior year.
We ended up using the USMC range at Puuloa prior to our OIF rotation in 2006 for qualification, after we hosted a train-the-trainer course taught by the USAMU. For those not familiar with Puuloa, it is known distance range where all high power rifle matches are held here in Hawaii. Pic below shows the range during a rifle clinic taught by the All Guard Rifle Team last month. We spent about a month total between this course and qualifying the battalion using the trainers as instructors and coaches on the firing line, resulting in a significant increase in both qualification scores and first time go’s. Granted, the farthest anyone shot (other than the trainers during their course) was 300 yards, but the quality of training and the results made me think that every unit should be scheduling this type of training with the AMU. If they arent doing it already, they should either offer or change the SDM course to a train-the-trainer type so that units can conduct ranges out to 600m using ACOGs on their M4s and M16s.
Puuloa 100yd line…
I like the way Staff Sergeant Dockery thinks.
I also like the way Todd.K and JSantoro think.
I can’t say anything that they haven’t said more eloquently.
I cint really add anything on the technical side, but it does suck balls to watch my Army slowly implode from the top down. Stupide decision after stupid decision…meh.