more punch for M-16/ M-4/ M-249

[Bowcaster]

There are many reasons why most modern western armies use 5.56. As others have pointed out, it is extremely difficult for riflemen to hit targets at the extreme ranges that you specify. I've never shot at targets 1000m away, but I suspect I would have extreme difficulty even in a calm environment. Add in the stress of combat and it becomes nearly impossible. Other posters also stated that weight is also an issue. Mobility is essential in modern combat.

Other considerations include ammo weight and size, and cost of weapons/ammo. Smaller lighter ammo means riflemen can carry more.

M14 7.62×51mm 393 gr (25.4 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.68 kg 14 mags @ 9.52 kg for 280 rds
M16 5.56×45mm 183 gr (11.8 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.3 kg 33 mags @ 9.9 kg for 660 rds
AK-47 7.62×39mm 281 gr (18.2 g) 30 rd mag @ 0.92 kg*[9] 10 mags @ 9.2 kg for 300 rds

In this comparison, 5.56 has an obvious advantage. The final reason has nothing to do with combat effectiveness. There are many weapons out there that are more effective than the M16/M4 but the fact is that the Army uses it because it is cheaper than newer weapons. Though if/when the Army does replace the M16 it will probably be replaced with another 5.56 weapon.

[kurt tank 152]

Originally Posted by Bowcaster

There are many reasons why most modern western armies use 5.56. As others have pointed out, it is extremely difficult for riflemen to hit targets at the extreme ranges that you specify. I've never shot at targets 1000m away, but I suspect I would have extreme difficulty even in a calm environment. Add in the stress of combat and it becomes nearly impossible. Other posters also stated that weight is also an issue. Mobility is essential in modern combat.

Other considerations include ammo weight and size, and cost of weapons/ammo. Smaller lighter ammo means riflemen can carry more.

M14 7.62×51mm 393 gr (25.4 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.68 kg 14 mags @ 9.52 kg for 280 rds
M16 5.56×45mm 183 gr (11.8 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.3 kg 33 mags @ 9.9 kg for 660 rds
AK-47 7.62×39mm 281 gr (18.2 g) 30 rd mag @ 0.92 kg*[9] 10 mags @ 9.2 kg for 300 rds

In this comparison, 5.56 has an obvious advantage. The final reason has nothing to do with combat effectiveness. There are many weapons out there that are more effective than the M16/M4 but the fact is that the Army uses it because it is cheaper than newer weapons. Though if/when the Army does replace the M16 it will probably be replaced with another 5.56 weapon.

good points! i liked the info about the weigths of the ammo types. i put this thread because i read reports of combat in afghanistan, saing that insurgents are opening fire on US/ GB troops at about 1000 meters away with their PK (7,62x54R), and pinning them down. their only choice is to get artillery/ mortars fire ASAP. M-16/ M-4 fire are having trouble killing enemies at 400+ meters. i say that a M-14 could hit at 1000 meters, but only a sniper could do. they can, with M-14 or other weapon in 7,62x51, such as M-240, return fire effectively, pin the enemy down and let the troops manouver. 5,56 has obvious weigth benefits, my question is if this benefit worth lack of long range effectiveness. many veterans here pointed that no need of change the 5,56 caliber to a more powerful one, i'd like to hear a opinion of a veteran of AFGHANISTAN, if M-16/ M-4/ M-249 are really sufficient at long range, and if they ever get artillery support when they call. unfortunely some veterans here made comments as i would have insulted them, and that's NOT my intention. some placed good replyes, as you did, others were plain offensive against me. that's OK, i'm here to learn, not screw around.
thanks for posting!

__________________________________________________ ________

I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.
Edward Gibbon

[Bowcaster]

Originally Posted by kurt tank 152

good points! i liked the info about the weigths of the ammo types. i put this thread because i read reports of combat in afghanistan, saing that insurgents are opening fire on US/ GB troops at about 1000 meters away with their PK (7,62x54R), and pinning them down. their only choice is to get artillery/ mortars fire ASAP. M-16/ M-4 fire are having trouble killing enemies at 400+ meters. i say that a M-14 could hit at 1000 meters, but only a sniper could do. they can, with M-14 or other weapon in 7,62x51, such as M-240, return fire effectively, pin the enemy down and let the troops manouver. 5,56 has obvious weigth benefits, my question is if this benefit worth lack of long range effectiveness. many veterans here pointed that no need of change the 5,56 caliber to a more powerful one, i'd like to hear a opinion of a veteran of AFGHANISTAN, if M-16/ M-4/ M-249 are really sufficient at long range, and if they ever get artillery support when they call. unfortunely some veterans here made comments as i would have insulted them, and that's NOT my intention. some placed good replyes, as you did, others were plain offensive against me. that's OK, i'm here to learn, not screw around.
thanks for posting!

I have to wonder how effective even a PK could be at 1000m, but if insurgents are using this tactic effectively, the reason it works is because they are using machine guns. Heavier weight + bipod = better accuracy, and they got plenty of ammo. Fighting back with riflemen, even equipped with 7.62x51 weapons such as the M14 would be ineffective. A better solution would be to fight fire with fire. To do this one could either make sure that the platoon M240s are always close by when in dangerous areas such as mountain passes, or to integrate M240s at the squad level, a role now taken by the M249. The problem with implementing them at squad level is again fire power vs mobility.

[Naffenea]

Originally Posted by Bowcaster

I have to wonder how effective even a PK could be at 1000m, but if insurgents are using this tactic effectively, the reason it works is because they are using machine guns. Heavier weight + bipod = better accuracy, and they got plenty of ammo. Fighting back with riflemen, even equipped with 7.62x51 weapons such as the M14 would be ineffective. A better solution would be to fight fire with fire. To do this one could either make sure that the platoon M240s are always close by when in dangerous areas such as mountain passes, or to integrate M240s at the squad level, a role now taken by the M249. The problem with implementing them at squad level is again fire power vs mobility.

The 240 at the squad level?!?! Ugh, talk about a suck fest. The 240 comes out when there is a good chance of needing it. Otherwise it stays back on the trucks. 249 is the squad level weapon and works in most cases as intended.

[Golani]

Originally Posted by Naffenea

The 240 at the squad level?!?! Ugh, talk about a suck fest. The 240 comes out when there is a good chance of needing it. Otherwise it stays back on the trucks. 249 is the squad level weapon and works in most cases as intended.

We had it at the squad level until 96~ with great success.
Mind you, these are the original MAG58 with no grips, which makes it even suckier. A 240B or better yet a Mk.48 would be heavy, but doable.

[Naffenea]

I am so glad I'm not infantry. Did you have an AG and AB as well, or was the gunner all by himself?

[Golani]

Originally Posted by Naffenea

I am so glad I'm not infantry. Did you have an AG and AB as well, or was the gunner all by himself?

Depends. Company 240's always do. Platoon 240's, which was the drill when I was in (i.e SAW per squad+1 240 at the platoon level) were dependent of force strength and mission. I assume the same was for squad 240's (I wasn't in back then, I only joined in 05).

[Crackshot]

Main standard for Western armies and those who use similar doctrine is the SAW at squad level and the GPMG at platoon level. In Afghanistan (for the ADF at least), the Mag 58 gunners often go out on patrol. I suppose it can't hurt to have that firepower available when you need it.

[Merkava188]

The only way for the M16/M4/M249s to have more stopping power is to modify them to fire either the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round.the 6.8 M6 carbine(which similar to the M4 with the chief difference being the size of round being fired.) is used by the LAPD SWAT units and was featured in an episode of Deadliest Warrior where Swat squared off with Germany's GSG-9 and won.This option should be given consideration by the Army and Marine Corps in reguards to future infantry weapons.

[johns624]

LAPD SWAT has much different requirements than the Army or Marines.

[Naffenea]

Originally Posted by Merkava188

The only way for the M16/M4/M249s to have more stopping power is to modify them to fire either the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round.the 6.8 M6 carbine(which similar to the M4 with the chief difference being the size of round being fired.) is used by the LAPD SWAT units and was featured in an episode of Deadliest Warrior where Swat squared off with Germany's GSG-9 and won.This option should be given consideration by the Army and Marine Corps in reguards to future infantry weapons.

Go face palm yourself for using Deadliest Warrior as your base.

[Stryker 19K30]

Originally Posted by Naffenea

Go face palm yourself for using Deadliest Warrior as your base.

Hey! It is a legitimate competition! Also since when are SWAT officers 'Warriors' ?

[Crackshot]

Originally Posted by Merkava188

The only way for the M16/M4/M249s to have more stopping power is to modify them to fire either the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round.the 6.8 M6 carbine(which similar to the M4 with the chief difference being the size of round being fired.) is used by the LAPD SWAT units and was featured in an episode of Deadliest Warrior where Swat squared off with Germany's GSG-9 and won.This option should be given consideration by the Army and Marine Corps in reguards to future infantry weapons.

Except the SWAT and the military have wildly different needs for these weapons. SWAT is a law enforcement agency, and they spend a considerable amount of time and training trying to avoid using lethal force.