M4 vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?

[Ben Segrest]

It sucks that the US government hampered the military when they signed that agreement to only use fmj for combat weapons.

Never happened

 

[Gus McCrae]

The 5.56 is a great round for the average infantry soldier for many reasons.

Within 100 yards, the round tumbles and fragments creating a nasty wound.

It's small/light and the average soldier can carry more.

Since the soldier can carry more, the soldier can provide more suppresive fire.

The round is fast and fairly accurate at longer ranges than other rounds in other platforms.

Light recoil allows for faster follow up shots.




Studies have taught the militaries of the world that high powered rifle rounds don't provide much benifit to the average soldier because they generally don't engage enemies at 800 yards. 5.56 is very deadly at the ranges it is used, you may not get the same bone crushing energy as 7.62 NATO, but the tumble and fragment aspect is very desireable. Since there is little advantage to equiping the average soldier with 7.62 NATO and it's easier to carry more 5.56 than 7.62X39mm I can't see why it should or would be replaced.

 

[dzelenka]

One other issue is that the average soldier or marine is not usually a very good shot (although optics are helping the situation). Taking advantage of more long range rounds would require more intensive marksmanship training which is expensive and time consuming. The military has been spending most of their money elsewhere.

In a perfect world, I would vote to up gun the troops to a round that had ballistics similar to the 6.5 Grendal or some other intermediate cartridge in the 6.5 - 7mm range with 120 to 130gr bullets. However, can anyone imagine the logistical nightmare that such a conversion would be?

I think the best current answer would be to standardize the Mk 262 and/or Mk318 ammo and to change back to rifle length guns with 1:8 or 1:8.5 barrels. That would make the bullet less stable and less likely to drill straight through. The Swiss, who do not need a NATO standard round, use a 5.56 with a 64 - 65 gr lead core bullet in a 1:10" barrel. It gives MOA accuracy out to 300M and is specifically designed to maximize yaw after impact. We also need to provide better marksmanship training at least to the trigger pullers. Perhaps the SDM training for all combat troops?

 

[Gus McCrae]

One other issue is that the average soldier or marine is not usually a very good shot (although optics are helping the situation). Taking advantage of more long range rounds would require more intensive marksmanship training which is expensive and time consuming. The military has been spending most of their money elsewhere.

In a perfect world, I would vote to up gun the troops to a round that had ballistics similar to the 6.5 Grendal or some other intermediate cartridge in the 6.5 - 7mm range with 120 to 130gr bullets. However, can anyone imagine the logistical nightmare that such a conversion would be?

I think the best current answer would be to standardize the Mk 262 and/or Mk318 ammo and to change back to rifle length guns with 1:8 or 1:8.5 barrels. That would make the bullet less stable and less likely to drill straight through. The Swiss, who do not need a NATO standard round, use a 5.56 with a 64 - 65 gr lead core bullet in a 1:10" barrel. It gives MOA accuracy out to 300M and is specifically designed to maximize yaw after impact. We also need to provide better marksmanship training at least to the trigger pullers. Perhaps the SDM training for all combat troops?

What are your thoughts on 6.8SPC vs 6.5 Grendel?

 

[dzelenka]

Without a lot of study, I like the bullets and case of the grendal better. However, I I am turned off by the way that Alexander Arms has handled it. I am on my iPhone so I am going to keep it brief for now.

 

[dzelenka]

I looked at the ballistics of both cartridges and would choose the Grendel. I think that using the Sierra 123gr matchking. For a similar velocity you get a better bullet which will mean better trajectory and more velocity and energy downrange.

 

[my-rifle]

I didn't think you could be neutral in the War on Terror. What happened to "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?

Actually you can be neutral. In the US we've been neutral on about a gazillion terrorist situations - that didn't involve us.

Remember Reagan sold anti-tank missiles to Iraq (at the time a Russian satellite state) when we'd forced the world to embargo the Iran-Iraq conflict, then he took the money he made, and used it to arm terrorists in Nicaragua. Yes, they were terrorists. They were just OUR terrorists.

He also armed and financed the mujaheddin terrorists in AFGHANISTAN. Being neutral regarding terrorists is not new. It's not even unusual.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Hitman, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. AAFES spends money putting BK and Starbucks on bases not the Army. Army Combat Arms Troops spend as much time on ranges and fire as many rounds as their Marine Corps brethren. In neither services case is the trraining intense enough or Battle Focused. Army Range time is too CQB focused and the Marine Rifleman spends far too much time on the KD range wrapping himself up in his sling. Neither approach works in Afghanistan. There is a real hardware gap, but, it isn't anywhere as broad as the software gap. We need more, more realistic training!

Teaching troops to shoot at intermediate ranges is important. Joe doesn't need to kill with his rifle at 600+ meters its not how we fight. At those ranges we manuver and allow the medium guns, mortars, and fires/CAS to do their work. As it sits right now we are struggling to press the 250-600 meter fight. Training can fix this. Personally I thing the hardware answer that with training will help close this gap is the M110. Its already in the system and being fielded and its 7:62 round is also readily availiable. I love 6:5 but it is too far frome being ready to field to help.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Hitman, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. AAFES spends money putting BK and Starbucks on bases not the Army. Army Combat Arms Troops spend as much time on ranges and fire as many rounds as their Marine Corps brethren. In neither services case is the trraining intense enough or Battle Focused. Army Range time is too CQB focused and the Marine Rifleman spends far too much time on the KD range wrapping himself up in his sling. Neither approach works in Afghanistan. There is a real hardware gap, but, it isn't anywhere as broad as the software gap. We need more, more realistic training!

Teaching troops to shoot at intermediate ranges is important. Joe doesn't need to kill with his rifle at 600+ meters its not how we fight. At those ranges we manuver and allow the medium guns, mortars, and fires/CAS to do their work. As it sits right now we are struggling to press the 250-600 meter fight. Training can fix this. Personally I thing the hardware answer that with training will help close this gap is the M110. Its already in the system and being fielded and its 7:62 round is also readily availiable. I love 6:5 but it is too far frome being ready to field to help.

 

[kengel2]

the Marine Rifleman spends far too much time on the KD range wrapping himself up in his sling. Neither approach works in Afghanistan. There is a real hardware gap, but, it isn't anywhere as broad as the software gap. We need more, more realistic training!

FWIW, the USMC has instituted more realistic range qualifications now. With tables 2,3, and 4 of the marksmanship program we actually get to shoot using burst. That was the fun part, there is movement while firing and failure to stop drills, etc etc. Basically they are finally teaching methods on how to run the rifle. I shot the KD last, but Im just a reservist however that was the first time ive shot the kd in like 3 years. We have done the other tables for our yearly quals.
Im not saying its enough change, but its a step in the right direction.

 

[flamatrix99]

5.56 has been killing the enemy for how many years now?

Sounds like the Army might want to focus on TRAINING!

I know that's the case I see here in front of me all the TIME!

Army Soldiers go to Basic Training, the rifle range, then MAYBE! one more range after that, then go to War....sad....

The Marines focus ALL their money on buying Ammo for the Infantry to train with. There is no shortage of range time for Marine Infantry.

The Army is spending loads of Money to make sure soldiers have nice carpet to walk on when they get home, a Starbucks in every base, a Burger King in every PX, etc.etc.

I ain't blowing smoke here people, this is stuff I've seen and experienced first hand. Some of you know where I work, that should say enough. The Army needs to stop pampering these soldiers and start spending money on TRAINING!

Nothing wrong with nice bases... I was stationed at one of the oldest and at the time one of the newest. I'll take the newer nicer ones any day.

I have a friend at work that was an Army sniper and team leader. From what I have seen, I bet he could out shoot any Marine equivalent.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Im not saying Joe shoots better than Jarhead. I think for the most part by and large they both suck. They have programs rooted in pre-history. My response was to point out that Green Beans on FOBs had squat to do with the lethality of individual soldiers and their weapons. I also don't think any of the proposed hardware fixes are gonna solve what is really a software problem.

If I was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs I would solve the problem in the following fashion:

a) Train Rifleman to fight their rifles. Troops need to be able to employ their tools throughout the effective range envelope from 0 to 300M from a variety of positions and under stress. Basic rifle manipulations, and malfunction clearance will also be trained.

b) Every rifle squads will have 2ea. AR-10 type rifles equipped with fixed power scope and operated by a trained Designated Marksman. The .308 ammo is in the system and the platforms can be rapidly fielded. The LMT offering has been extensively tested by the UK MoD and the KAC platform is probably the most well tested weapon of its type in the world.

C) Swap out the 2 SAW Platforms in each squad with a Medium Machine Gun. SAWs were designed with fighting in Jungles in mind. In the confined space of a Jungle the massive volume of fire power to fast firing SAWs can put out is a God Send when employed in an ambush or when breaking contact. In the current conflict they are useless. The squad would be better served with a Medium Gun that can defeat light cover and has the punch at distance to fix an enemy so he can be manuvered against.

d) more training. Bi-yearly or quaterly qualifications aren't training. Training is training. Bullets are relatively cheap. Grunts should be on a range at least once a week. Individual Weapons training shouldnt be a field exercise it should be accessible. Lets get rid of the Helmets, Flak Jackets and arbitrary rules and make it easy for a Platoon Leader to get some bullets and a range and conduct training. SOF guys cracked the codex on this long ago.

e) Every Combat Arms Company should have a Company Master Trainer. Armor guys have Company Master Gunners there is no reason Grunts shouldn't have the same. Provide the trainers and make the training easier to access and the training will get done. And the bullet situation, two words: Economic Stimiulus! We spend Billions on far dumber stuff. Lets re-open some ammo plants and put folks to work!

 

[dzelenka]

I agree with what VG just said. Each of those would be an improvement.

2 items I want to address: first, although an improved medium power cartridge could be designed, the cost and logistics of doing so makes it impractical in the short run. Second, shooting on a KD range is important for marksmanship training. If you cannot hit a black circle on a white background at a known distance, you are not executing the fundamentals of shooting. If you cannot execute them under the conditions of a KD range, how can you expect to do so in more challenging situations?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I agree the KD range is an invaluable tool. My complaint is that it shouldn't be the only tool. It should always be part/ of the program.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

And by medium gun I was refering to a M240 not a new cartridge and gun.

 

[dzelenka]

I agree the KD range is an invaluable tool. My complaint is that it shouldn't be the only tool. It should always be part/ of the program.

No doubt.

 

[dzelenka]

And by medium gun I was refering to a M240 not a new cartridge and gun.

I understood that. I was speaking of a new cartridge. I thought we were both clear.

 

[LTC_Pere]

my first post

I had to reply to this thread with my own personal experience. I'm sure many here have had a similar experience. When I was deployed to Iraq I can say I felt very confident that my M4 was superior in every way shape and form to what the enemy was using. Maybe that is because we had superior optics, superior training, and discipline, but I can still proudly say "give me my M4 over an ak any day".

Ballistics aside- if you were a target within 300m of the business end of my rifle, you were dead.

 

[mike308]

I was taught from an early age that you should use every tool in your tool box to get the job done quickly and efficiently. So if you had a tuff nut to crack you didn't beat on the wrench with your hand or a hammer you got a longer handled wrench and used a cheater pipe or extension.

If the AK is a superior weapon I'm sure there are plenty of them lying next to dead a-holes to supply our troops if they felt it was necessary.

I've not touched or fired a M4. I've seen what appears to be M4 type rifles come out to the range. They usually have the optics and all the others accessories except for the auto select option. I've seen some very good shooting and I've seen some really crap shooting. Most of the crap can be divided into 2 groups: those that don't know what they are doing with any rifle and poorly aligned optics. I've seen the same with the AK rifles. When someone cannot hit a SR1 target at 25 yards they have the same 2 problems.

As far as the round goes only the body count will tell the tale. How many of our people have been kill by rifle fire versus killed by IEDs and car bombs? Have we killed the enemy by gunfire or other means. There are lots of tools in our tool box and a few of our really big tools are not being used on their stronghold which will slow them down.

In this type of warfare everyone is an enemy or a relative of your enemy. Politics and politicians are our greatest liability not the rifle or the ammunition. If it moves and is not in a US or NATO uniform put it down! All we are doing is wasting time, manpower and tons of money for a people that could care less about what we are doing.

In WWII the Germans were very good with their 88s and MG42s but the real war was won with the B class of bomber and the Soviet armys mass killing. I'm not down playing what our men did on the ground but basically the Germans ran out of men and munitions.

 

[MyTFAL]

Isn't Izmash in financial trouble? Hell we could get a good deal straight from the ruskies, if we wanted them. Probably cost a hell of alot less than a M4, then let the soldiers choose. Everybodies looking for a new cartridge how about 7.62 x 39?

All that said its hard to beat the accuraccy of the AR platform. Increase knockdown go for headshots only!!!