RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
The Iraqi Army is going to replace its AK-47’s with M-16’s.
In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.
Now, I don’t want to start a debate about which is a better weapon, the AK or the M-16. That’s a debate we’ve had before here, and I think my opinions are well known. Nor is this about the literally dozens of other issues this brings up; preventing fratricide, denying the enemy easy access to ammo and parts, the dozens of different AK variants in use by the Iraqis, the security of the weapons once given to the Iraqis, etc etc. Just think of the symbolism alone of this move.
The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East.
That statement alone speaks volumes. The Iraqis have established their own version of democracy, not particularly American style, it’s democracy none the less. Now, by adopting American weapons, they are making even more breaks from the past and trying to emulate what they are perceiving as superior technology.
“Most of the soldiers think they will be just like the Americans, and that is making them very happy,” said Capt. Rafaat Mejal Ahmed, the Iraqi 1st Division weapons and ammunition officer
US and Iraqi forces are fighting side by side and have been building mutual respect for each other. The Iraqis look on their American counterparts as mentors and they want to impress them, show them that they too can carry the fight to the enemy. The Americans, conversely, are seeing the Iraqis like little brothers, or even sons, that they have to teach how to fight, how to be a man, and are proud of their accomplishments. It is becoming very much a big brother type relationship.
It has been especially so with the Iraqi interpreters, who have worked with our troops. From the beginning, they have wanted to prove themselves to the Americans. They want to be like us. That attitude has been spreading far and wide among the Iraqi regular forces, as evidenced by Capt. Ahmed’s statement.
When I was active duty I had the opportunity to train with a small cadre of ROK Marines NCO’s. (That’s South Korean Marines for those of you who may not know). The ROK’s have an incredible reputation for toughness in the Marine Corps. Here were guys knee high to a grass hopper, wearing American gear designed for guys twice their size, looking like a little kid playing soldier. But they would outhump you, outfight you, and ask for more. We respected the hell out of ‘em. It was quite a shock to see that they respected us even more so. And at an institutional level as well. Their emblem was almost a carbon copy of the Eagle Globe and Anchor. Even though they would have been better served to use equipment specifically designed for them, they preferred using US second hand gear that was way too big for them, because they wanted to be like us.
Like I said, the symbolism of this development can not be understated. The Iraqis are well on their way towards fielding a competent military that can stand on it’s own, breaking from the past and embracing the future of their own free and secure country, emulating their liberators. AQ recognized a long time ago that we were trying to accomplish this in Iraq as a model for the rest of the middle east. That’s why they made Iraq the center of their fight. This, along with so many other trends in Iraq, shows that they are losing the ideological fight as well as the military fight. The Iraqis are not only abandoning the AK, they are abandoning what it represents. Nows not the time to let them fall.
Entries (RSS)
Nice one, Crunchie.
It should also be noted that their having to develop the concept of a professional NCO Corps basically from scratch. To Americans and other westerners, it’s no biggy, but there, it’s a sea change.
Good luck to them in all ways. :em04:
February 28th, 2008 at 9:57 AMUsing
Hey, one of my ultra-rare firsts! :em95: :em69: :em93:
February 28th, 2008 at 9:57 AMUsing
Hmmm. Is this good news? I’m sure Bushmaster and Colt will relish the news. Even so, the M16 really isn’t an improvement. It can be standardized, though, with American suppliers. If I had to guess, this has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with logistics.
That works. If they switch, the price of 7.62×39 will go down.
That means I can stock up while the Iraqis soak up that varmint round, the 5.56mm for their new, shiny Mattel rifles. Low x39 prices work for me, and I will not be switching to the AR family. Did that on the Corps’ dime, but not by choice.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:31 AMUsing
When given a choice to fight either the Americans or the South Koreans, the Viet Cong always chose the Americans. The South Koreans were the toughest guys in Nam. I think they were practicing for the time when North Korea would decide to cross the border. They used the 16, but only because you could attach a bayonet. (Just kidding about the bayonet!)
February 28th, 2008 at 10:56 AMUsing
Someone should paste this quote above the entrance to Congress.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:58 AMUsing
Yep. I remember a story I read once about a joint op between US and ROK Marines in Viet Nam. The US company set up a blocking force and the ROK’s were supposed to drive the NVA into ‘em. The ROK CO came up on the net and said “Enemy engaged”. The firefight started and the US Marines were set up and waiting for the NVA but they never came.
The firefight got real loud and the US CO called the ROK’s and asked for a sit rep, and whether they needed help. The ROK replied “No thank you. Out”
The firefight kept going and the US CO called again and asked if the ROK’s needed help. The ROK answered back “No Thank You, busy now, out”.
Next transmission was from the ROK, “Enemy eliminated”.
They had taken out a battalion of NVA.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:03 AMUsing
presenceusmc
Nope, it’s a quantum leap forward over the Krapishnikov. Especially in testament to the Iraqi technical competence. The M-16 requires a trained operator, not an illiterate peasant. If you want to have a boob spray a bunch of useless rounds at a barn door that threaten low flying aircraft after the first three shots, then charge it and beat on it with the stock, then the AK is for you. If you want to train a rifleman to actually kill someone with his weapon, then the M-16 is the one. It’s kind of like giving someone a pager or a Blackberry.
Both actually. Logistics is of course a huge factor, but the strategic symbolism is huge.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 AMUsing
ot but good news for a change. Oklahoma state legislators are trying to pass conceal carry on campus. :em69:
February 28th, 2008 at 11:23 AMUsing
In Bernard Lew’s History of the middle east, he writes the fact that arab army’s adopted western dress as it was the army of victory.
Personally, the M16 is useless in the middle east.. does colt / bushmaster have that much lobbying power ? We need to build something for desert warfare.. its inconceivable that the great USA is using a jungle gun in the middle east!
Israel has the M16 / M4 because of military aid requires them to purchase these..now they have the TAVOR
February 28th, 2008 at 11:33 AMUsing
Hilljohny, join the CCCW.COM facebook group.. “students for concealed carry” thats where I spend my day..
And if you join the group.. you can get the promo code for 50% off fobus holsters.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:54 AMUsing
oops thats concealdcarry.com
February 28th, 2008 at 11:56 AMUsing
Sorry, but you’re all wrong. It is an indisputable, inarguable fact, the best rifle is the one for which you have sufficient ammunition and magazines. Crashnikov or Clot, or Mouser, when the ammo runs out, :em95: all you’ve got is an expensive, sexy-looking club.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:59 AM(nb - SP’s with malice aforethought)
Using
We were trained on PArris Island to take care of our weapons in 3 months, but we’ve been in Iraq for a lot longer, so this seems like semi-hyperbole. Seriously, it doesn’t take that much training, just practice.
There might be some peasants in central America who would debate that premise. The M-16 is just as easy to operate, if not more so. The trick is cleaning it. Good range rifle, but not something I’d ever willingly trust my life to.
No, a trained rifleman can do so with any weapon that shoots reliably and has halfway decent sights. By this argument, we should still be using the M-14, a proposal with which I would actually agree.
This is a kickback to US arms suppliers. The gun buyers and ammo manufacturers are going to suffer a slowdown. It may make sense to say that it provides standardization, but it makes no sense to allege that this is anything but a decision from supply and the armory. Personally, I’ll take an AK with sight upgrades or an SKS over an AR any day, and I qualified “Expert” in the Corps.
The AR just doesn’t pack the gear, and it isn’t inherently more accurate than anything else. It may beat out a beat, corroded AK, but my SKS will match any AR. I’m sure the Iraqi Army wasn’t handing our WASR-10 junkers to its troops, so that rules that theory out. Besides, I’m not buying the argument that ~47 grains beats 123 grains. I just hope it makes my ammo cheaper.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:04 PMUsing
Personally, I think that’s the bigger story. The entire operation in a nutshell. Kickbacks, fraud, and waste, with some good feelings and flag-waiving thrown in to make everyone get the warm fuzzies.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:19 PMUsing
It took ya that long? Ya all mustn’t have been paying attention. In my day we learned the rifle in two weeks range time and maybe 4-5 classes prior to that.
It takes a higher level of competence to reliably field an M-16 than an AK. It takes more training to carry an M-16 than an AK. The fact that the Iraqis feel they are ready for that is the point.
Ergonomically yes, and yes it is the cleaning that requires more training, thus my use of the word “operator” and not shooter. And I did trust my life to it, and I had exactly one failure on an M-16 and that was because I had not lubed it after a cleaning for an inspection. I’ve literally put 1K rounds through an AR without cleaning it and not had a malfunction.
And I qualified Expert three times in the Corps and I wouldn’t use and AK or SKS to shoot a barn door at 10 yards, about the only thing it’s good for. The M-16 IS more accurate than the AK/SKS series. 350 yards versus 550 for a point target. The in flight ballistics of the 5.56 are vastly superior to the 7.62 Soviet, as are the terminal ballistics.
Actually they were handing out some old worn out junk, not that a brand new AK is any better.
What rounds would you be talking about there presence? It’s certainly not the 5.56. The old M193 5.56 had a 55 grain bullet, the new M885/SS109 has a 62 grain bullet. And actually yes, the 55 grain and 62 grain cause far greater wound cavities than the 7.62 Soviet.
versus this
February 28th, 2008 at 12:35 PMUsing
The gun talk is as always interesting. I tend to think the symbolism and the sentiments of the Iraqi soldiers, which I have heard from others as well, is the important thing. I hope they get thier shit together quick cuz Obammessiah is yanking their big brothers out as soon as he sits down in the oval office. It’s too bad cuz I think the big picture plan in Iraq would’ve worked given about 10 more years. We would’ve seen democracy of a sorts spread but shit takes time. We won’t have that time.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:01 PMFinally, Iraq will be like Vietnam. Left hung out to dry by American liberals.
Using
And maxxdog nails it. :em69:
February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 PMUsing
I had the opportunity to work with ROK Rangers when I was enlisted. They are tough as nails. Traded MRE’s a couple of times. They liked ours, I liked theirs. Their CSM was hilarious, but never in front of his own troops. The M16 vs. AK debate I leave to y’all since I’ve never fired an AK.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:08 PMUsing
The sentiments of the Iraqui soldiers towards ours is laudable. Comraderie and a showing of Brannaghs Henry V on movie night. Sentiments in my own neighborhood leave much to be desired. A moonbattybitch in the next block wants them tried for the war crime of “fighting for Bush.” I want the Obamassiah tried for treason. He was a paid board member of a group based at Columbia University that funnelled money to terrorists whose objective is the destruction of Israel. Or does he not know the definition of the word ally?
February 28th, 2008 at 3:14 PMUsing
The finest assault rifle available today, Bar None
“.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:21 PMUsing
Is that the latest incarnation of the AUG HOGHEAD?
February 28th, 2008 at 3:38 PMUsing
Want
February 28th, 2008 at 3:39 PMonetwo, thanks.Using
Crunch, It’s the Tavor T.A.R-21 (with thanks to Google, ‘cuz I had no clue).
February 28th, 2008 at 5:56 PMUsing
Let me guess
February 28th, 2008 at 6:15 PM$3000?
Using
Figure theres gonna be some price spikes ahead?
The accessories market’s gonna ’splode..
That ammo is ’spensive these days,, wonder what it’s gonna be like next year,,
February 28th, 2008 at 6:15 PMUsing
The Tavor, of course. :em98: I should have known that. Thanks Mike.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:48 PMUsing
416’s would have been better, oh well. A good choice overall though, despite the bad press Stoners design gets, it’s a fantastic tool if used and maintained properly. Bullpups have some nice features (compact with full length barrel, one handed balance point etc) but I’ll take faster mag changes and more rail room any day.
On another note, it makes me literally sick to my stomach to think that a liberal might get in office and dishonor our soldiers, the Iraqis, and this Great Nation.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:00 PMUsing
I spent 2 tours working with RoKAF, and it seems that living their entire lives within a few minutes SCUD/No Dong flight from a commie hoard has made the vast majority of the military there (especially those who make it a career) pretty hardcore.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:06 PMUsing
No $1000.00 IF you can find one. The Mossad and IDF buy the most of them
February 28th, 2008 at 7:13 PMUsing
and the compact MTAR-21…………well take a second mortgage and stand in line……………………………………………..
February 28th, 2008 at 7:15 PMUsing
Buy NOW before Osamma Obamma BANS it………………….
February 28th, 2008 at 7:16 PMUsing
crunchie……………..
The development of the new assault rifle, that should eventually replace in service the ageing M16A1, CAR-15 and IMI Galil assault rifles, began in Israel in the 1991. The new rifle was developed by the Israel Military Industries (IMI, now TAAS) company, in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This new rifle received the name of “Tavor” and the designation of TAR-21 (Tavor Assault Rifle, for 21st century). The new rifle first appeared on public in the 1998, and it had been tested by the IDF during 1999-2002. At the moment of writing (spring of 2003) there were no large purchases of the Tavor by the IDF, because of low funding, but late in the 2002 India signed an US $20M contract with IMI for undisclosed number of TAR-21 assault rifles and Galatz sniper rifles.
Israel Military Industries is launching the new family of the TAVOR assault rifles. The weapon is offered in four configurations:
The basic design - the T.A.R-21 Tavor Assault Rifle.
A sharp-shooting configuration is offered as a squad weapon.
For commando, airborne, paratroopers and special rescue units, as well as tank crews, a short Tavor assault rifle is offered.
Micro T.A.R is specially configured for security forces and special missions.
avor uses the proven, compact Bull pup design, which was optimized to best match the ergonomics and mission requirements of the modern warrior, providing natural handling, intuitive aiming from all firing positions and improved hit accuracy. Accuracy and target acquisition is enhanced, by the use of accurate aiming, through the use of an integral reflex optical reflective sight, which projects the aiming point on the center of the sight. Tavor has an attachment for additional sighting devices, such as a 3rd generation night vision sight, which can be installed with no zeroing. Tavor is gas operated, using rotating bolt action. All types use standard NATO 5.56mm ammunition (M855/SS109), accommodate a 30 round magazine and sustain a rate of fire of 750 - 900 rounds per minute, and have the following specifications.
The IDF did not stint on demands, and the IMI did its best to meet the IDF requirements. They know that any rifle that is favored by the IDF has a good chance of being purchased by foreign armies, as the Uzi was.
The new rifle is very different from other rifles. Its body is made from alloy-like metal substitutes; it is extremely lightweight, is a dark green color, and is very well insulated, so that it does not heat up after prolonged firing.
For the first time, product designers were part of the design team for the rifle. The “Formtech” company’s designers, who were chosen to design the weapon’s shape, were instructed to design a comfortable rifle with a futuristic look.
The Tavor was not equipped with the normal metal sight that requires closing one eye for shooting. Instead, the Tavor has an optical sight known as a “red dot.” The soldier looking through the sight sees both his target and the red dot. When the red dot aligns with the target, the bullets fired will make exact hits.
The rifle can also be equipped with a dual-purpose sight: at the press of a button, the sight can be adjusted to a laser finder, so that the rifle can be fired from hip height, using the laser to illuminate the target.
The Tavor is also designed for night fighting. Night goggles can be taken from the soldier’s helmet and attached to the rifle, making the red dot system effective also at night. The entire rifle was designed to be user-friendly.
The Tavor was designed to have its center of balance conveniently placed and can be adjusted in minutes for left-handed use.
All the metal parts in the rifle are specially treated to avoid rusting. To make the changeover to the new rifle easy, many parts of the Tavor are located identically to the M-16.
The only problem with the Tavor is its price - the M-16 rifles are purchased from the United States for several tens of dollars a piece, as part of US aid. The Tavor will cost several hundreds of dollars each.
Foreign armies are already interested in the new IMI product, and several designs of the rifle have been prepared, including smaller versions and a special sniper model.
The Tavor TAR-21 is a gas operated, selective fire, magazine fed assault rifle of bullpup configuration. It is available in several configurations, which differ in the barrel lengths and accessories. The basic configuration is the TAR-21 assault rifle with the 460mm (18.1 in) barrel. Next are the compact assault rifle, called CTAR-21, with the barrel 380 mm (15 in) long, and the micro assault rifle, with the barrel of only 250 mm (10 in) long, called MTAR-21. The latter rifle also featured a redesigned front part of the housing, for a more comfortable hold of the short weapon.
TAR-21 utilizes a now-common long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier. Gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to one found in the M16 rifle and has seven lugs. The ejection ports are made on both sides of the weapon, and the right or the left side ejection can be selected by installing the bolt with the ejector mounted on the right or on the left, respectively (and, of cause, this change requires the gun to be partially disassembled). The bolt carrier rides on the single guide rod, with the return spring unit located above it, behind and inside the hollow gas piston rod. The charging handle is located at the front left side of the gun and does not reciprocate when gun is fired. The charging handle slots are cut on the both sides of the gun housing, so it can be installed on either side of the weapon, as required. The trigger unit is more or less conventional, with the ambidextrous fire mode selector / safety switch located above the pistol grip.
The TAR-21 has no separate receiver. Instead, all parts are mounted within the high impact-resistant plastic housing, reinforced with steel inserts where appropriate. The access to all the internal parts is controlled by the hinged buttplate, which can be swung down for internal inspection and disassembly.
TAR-21 has no open sights. It is fitted with the standard Picatinny-type accessory rail on the top of the gun. At the present time the standard sighting equipment for the TAR-21 series rifles (except for the STAR-21 sniper rifle) is the Israeli-made ITL MARS, a complicated and expensive reflex-type sight with the built-in laser pointer. For the night time operations the MARS could be complemented with the ITL Mini N/SEAS compact night vision device.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:25 PMUsing
I’ve shot the M-16 (own a Colt AR-15), AK (own 2 Egyptian variants) and an SKS (own a Russian one). But if I had to choose one military rife to protect my family? M-14 hands down. Strapped for cash during a very rough time in my life, I parted with one 9 years ago and have regretted it ever since. The feel, accuracy, range, reliability… Better for deer, too. It ain’t sexy or RoboCop-esque, but dammit, it’s a GREAT all around semi-auto rifle!
Full auto? An HK MP10 to go with my 10mm Glocks! :em96:
February 28th, 2008 at 9:18 PMUsing
Sorry… HK MP5/10
Oh, I WILL own an M-14 sooner rather than later.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:31 PMUsing
LC 03-Yeah, yeah, 2 weeks out at the range. How many hours cleaning, though, for each hour on the range? :em99: At least they had good food out there…
Seriously, though, what range were those wound damage pics taken at? You imply the 5.56 retains that energy out to our 500-yard qualifying line, but that simply is not the case. The physics are preposterous. You know what the wind does to that round with a solid 25-mph cross wind. You’re right, I was off on the grains, but a 62 grain round out to 500 yards? Would you shoot a deer at that range with that light of a bullet? I wouldn’t.
Now, AK stock sites suck. The AR has that beat, but that’s about it. The design is wobbly, it has no piston system (major liability), and I always marveled that I could hit anything with the upper and lower receivers rattling as much as they did. The armory rifles were always pretty beat up, so maybe I had bad samples, and the magazines caused a lot of jams, but that is something I have never experienced with an AK and only rarely in an SKS, so you’ll pardon my skepticism
At point blank range, the ballistic jelly shots may be pretty impressive, but look at the frangible nature of the projectile. I’m sorry, but I never bought the “you’ll shoot someone in the thigh and the bullet will come out the shoulder” urban legends. Look at the penetration distance, too. You’re stacking up a 30/30 equivalent round (7.62×39 is just a hair under 30/30 stats) against a varmint round (.223/5.56mm) at an unknown range.
The 5.56 depends on the hydrostatic shock, so, while you may hit the guy at 500 yards, you aren’t going to see the massive cavity because the round derives its shock effect from high speed, which attenuates over that distance. The 7.62×39 really isn’t a 300+ yard round, as it is a weaker .30 cal, but neither is the 5.56 mm. You may “tag” out to 500 yds., but you really need something in the 7.62×51 ballpark for effective shots that far out. So, yes, you may be better off point blank with the AR, but I’ll take my chances with a weak .30 cal over a .223 in the 50-300 yard window.
Not that our guys have a choice, but that’s my logic. I know the Church of Bushmaster would disagree, but it just makes sense to me.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:23 AMUsing
Excellent response presence, and one I really need to reply to, but it’s late and I just returned from the hospital (minor accident with my mom, no biggie), so I will speak at you on the morrow sir. :em04:
February 29th, 2008 at 1:28 AMUsing
eh. not so keen on the Tavor. Bullpups are nice, but I’m a horrible traditionalist. Weapons are made of Wood, Steel, Leather, and Bone. Nothing else.
I dont even like plastic grips…. but then, I’m weird like that. The Tavor, while no doubt innovative and technically excellent, simply does not move me. Then again, neither does anything polymer, and EBRs dont thrill me either. I do not know -why- I have this…. ‘fetish’ but I do. I guess I like a weapon that, in a pinch, I can smack the shit out of someone with it after it’s empty.
and as far as 7.62X39 vs 5.56….. I’m in favor of .308, or 30-06…
I like -big- bullets. going -really- fast. 150 grains and up, at no less than 2,500 fps.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:11 AMUsing
thepresenceusmc
with respect the early problems with the M16 was due to using the wrong powder. the M16 was designed for a faster burning propellant than the M14 but the military did not follow specs.
residue from the standard ball powder caused the jams and was difficult to remove with the cleaning kits provided (strangely enough the M16 does not need regular cleaning with the proper ammo). when i got mine as a boot (sept ‘70) it was so filthy i could not see the rifleing. after an hour or so of trying to scrub out the crud i tried flushing it out with hot water which did the trick and there after reduced cleaning time from about an hour to 15 minutes (they were still using up the ball powder in training).
during training i saw the film that “legend” came from. it was shot with a “slo-mo” camera during a firefight. the bullet hit a viet cong soldier in the right hip and a few frames later exited, apparently straight up, from his left shoulder. the blood spray from both areas was obvious. i cannot prove he was not hit by two separate rounds but the way his stomach, then chest bulged between sprays convinced me. the range of the shot seemed to be about 150 yards from the camera. the extreme tumbling only comes with the proper load. the ball powder did not give the muzzle velocity needed and a slower round is more easily affected by windage, reducing accuracy and damage.
funny enough the stock of my first M16 was made by Mattel. i nearly soiled myself when i saw the logo stamped inside.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:54 AMUsing
The 5.56 NATO was designed to maim, not kill. Not that it won’t kill you, it sure as hell will, but a high-velocity frangible bullet will shred an extremity… and the wounded require a lot more manpower to care for than the dead.
Assuming, of course, your adversary gives a :em72: about their wounded.
I like 7.62×51. I’ve used it for years to drop Bambies. I’ve cleaned dozens of them and seen the internal damage. I have no doubt it will perform well if I ever need it to aim at animals that are aiming back.
…and I won’t be using ball ammo, either. :em93:
February 29th, 2008 at 9:11 AMUsing
Hillary: ‘We’ve Got Two Wars. We’ve Got To End One, We’ve Got To Win The Other’…
February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 AMUsing
Presence, Hat, Crunchie, and all the others who brought up the ROKs,
You touched on something I think is extremely important. Yes, the ROKs were outstanding warriors in RVN, and not just their Marines, but also ther regular army troops of the Capitol Division. They were all legendary.
But during the Korean War, only decade and a half before, the ROK troops had one of the most humiliating records ever, even worse than the Vietnamese a few years later. From worst to best in less than a single military generation! This gives the lie to all those arguments about the innate superiority of soldiers from certain types of social or political systems, races or culture, or whatever else. And it debunks the notion that the standard South Vietnamese trooper could never be a good soldier. And ditto for the Arab of today.
The essential issues are training, leadership, morale and tradition. IMHO, in that order.
Given a dozen years to organize and train, and the ARVN might become as effective as the ROK. Consider consider the ARVN defense of An Loc against superior forces in May 1972, or the heroic last stand of the ARVN 18 ID at Xuan Loc in 1975, They almost made it. This should be an inspiring lesson for both the Iraqis and for us as well.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:12 AMUsing
One of the things I have noticed that is missing from this thread is the psychological impact this has on the Iraqi Brigade that is getting the M-16’s. As a former CMATT/MiTT member, I can tell you that the Iraqi’s looked at American soldiers as larger than life. (Better training, better equipment, better weapons, etc.) Just as we were issuing the new Iraqi Army body armor, kevlar, etc….issuing/equipping them with 16’s (in their mind) raises them (albeit in baby steps) towards the level of the Western (American) warrior.
Ballistics aside (and we can debate that til the cows come home), the major impact (IMHO) for this story is psychological, not tactical.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:24 PMUsing
Well I guess I must be old fashioned because I prefer the 30-06 to the .308. If I am in a firefight I want something that will punch through a fair amount of cover, the 5.56 just can’t do that. I have fired the M16 exactly once in boot. I fired 100 rounds and the piece of mattel toy jammed 3 times during the training. No thanks, I would not trust my life to that piece of crap toy gun. I would take a bolt action 30-06 any day over that gun, thanks.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:33 PMUsing
Azygos - I have a soft spot for the 30-06, too. My first deer rifle was a Winchester Ranger in 30-06, thus my first deer kill was with a 30-06. I had to trade the Ranger to pay for an expensive car repair and replaced a while later with a Savage 110E Tactical in .308. It was a bitch to carry around, but it was scary accurate! Many a deer ended up in Jesus’ petting zoo with that jewel (which I still have). Later, I treated myself to a Browning A-Bolt BOSS in .300 WinMag and had a ball dropping dear in their tracks with neck shots. My last deer season in Georgia and my first deer season here, I went back to .308 Winchester and I’m going to stick with it. It is an inherently accurate round, it is used in Military rifles and machine guns, reloading brass is fairly abundant and bullet style/weight choices are excellent. If I need more knockdown than the .308, I have the .300 WinMag. Still need more punch? My twusty .375 H&H Magnum!
February 29th, 2008 at 2:55 PMGot an elephant problem? Who ya gonna call? :em01:
Using
presenceusmc
Boot camp or fleet? :em93: A functional field cleaning is about 10 minutes, max. Punch the bore (for accuracy, not reliability), clean the chamber, bolt (face, gas rings and bell), bolt carrier, bolt carrier key, and firing pin.
I believe 100 meters, but not sure. The test that those were taken from was done by a former Viet Nam War surgeon. He tested 6 or 7 rounds, including the 5.45 Soviet, Yugoslavian 7.62X39, West German 7.62 NATO, and both the M193 and M855/SS109. All ranges were identical for each round. Part of the report is here.
Nope, never implied that, I was talking accuracy only. The 5.56 does lose velocity and the wound pattern does change at different ranges. In fact, as Dr. Fackler discusses, you can actually gauge the range that a 5.56 was fired from by the wound cavity, down to about +/- 200 meters. Interestingly enough at 500 meters the 5.56 wound looks like a 7.62 Soviet at 200.
Just the upper an lower receivers in an older rifle, and then not much. Never had a problem with it affecting accuracy as once they got to that point (a LOT of rounds) they were shipped to depot maintenance.
Not necessarily. Have you ever once seen a clogged gas tube? Me neither.
Apparently you did since you qual’d expert.
Magazines can be replaced. Any jams caused by a mag has nothing to do with the weapon itself.
Neither have I, however I do buy the actual muscle and tissue damage that I have seen. And yes I did look at the penetration. That was my whole point. The 5.56 dumped 100% of it’s energy in only 36cm, with the majority of tissue damage done in only 25cm. The 7.62 Soviet traveled 74cm. That’s a hell of a lot of wasted energy. Terminal ballistics aren’t just mass, it’s mass and energy, bullet design and strength, stability and target medium. In short, the 7.62 Soviet will cavitate after 25 cm and turn with it’s center of gravity (the base) first and exit that way, leaving a small entrance and exit, with a permanent wound channel equal to the projectile length only, and minimal tissue and muscle disruption. The 5.56 delivers massive tissue damage when the bullet disintegrates and the hyper-sonic wave follows it into the target, creating two to three separate wound channels after 25 cm, and multiple fragments tearing muscle and tissue. The permanent cavity is anywhere from 5 to 10 cm wide. At longer ranges it does lose a lot of the hydrostatic effects, and reverts to a wound channel that looks like the Soviet round at 200m.
Out to ranges of 400 meters the 5.56 has better terminal ballistics, creating far more debilitating wounds than either the 7.62 Soviet or NATO. After 400 meters the 5.56 fails compared to the 7.62 NATO, but still outperforms the 7.62 Soviet, which is purely academic anyway since the AK can’t hit shit past 300.
Lastly, I’ve never seen an M-16 catch fire, but I have seen an AK do it. To much exposed metal and wood.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:54 PMUsing
Crunch, what about penetration? not energy transfer, but penetration, specifically of any type or armor?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:35 PMUsing
Regular kevlar, same as any rifle round for the most part. SAAPI plates however can stop most any military round out there short of a .50 BMG. The M855 however was designed specifically to defeat Soviet body armor with a steel penetrator core, which is I believe one of it’s failings against the hajis. It over penetrates and doesn’t transfer as much energy as the old M193 did. Combine that with being fired from shorter barreled M-4’s it loses a lot of velocity and inherent instability, which is one of the factors which causes it’s lethality.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:13 PMUsing
Crunch, I hope the fallout from the accident was minor, and everyone’s doing ok.
Thanks for the response. It gives me a lot to think about. It is amusing that your impression of the M4 and mine are identical. No fan of the A2, I would take an A2 over an M4 any day. In the end, though, I trust the x39 over the 5.56 for most uses. If the x39 can’t handle it, I’ve got the x54. That having been said, I won’t disrespect AR’s quite so much in the future.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:10 AMUsing
Late to the party as usual…
Crunch, you know my feelings on the matter…
Life begins at an x51mm rimless case, and just gets better from there on out…
March 1st, 2008 at 1:44 AMUsing
The liberal - no, not liberal, Democratic - defeatism on Iraq ignores a scintillating, golden, end-of-Rainbow opportunity we have here. Could you imagine if we did a complete swap and turned a Turbaned Toilet Totalitarian Terror Tank into a full-sized Arab version of Israel? (No offense to the Israelis, who are stalwart allies, but the nation is kind of…tiny, and constantly battling the barbarians at its gates, so it’s kind of hard to mount a regional conversion campaign from Tel Aviv.)
If Iraq is a functioning Democracy with a respectably low rate of violent crime, for, say, 10 years, then there’s no way Lebanon doesn’t topple, and Iranians don’t result as well. If you look at a map…that would be one hell of a swathe of friendly and presumably-neutral nations running through Terrorland.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:31 AMUsing
“and Iranians don’t result as well” should read “and there’s no way Iranians don’t revolt as well.”
And the link should end at “map”….sigh
March 1st, 2008 at 11:33 AMUsing