Study: Soldiers Want Deadlier Guns

[cphilip]

Study: Soldiers Want Deadlier Guns
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | May 25, 2007

Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.

"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.

CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.

"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."

The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.

In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.

The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.

Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.

But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.

Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.

"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.

A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.

Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.

Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.

[cphilip]

What suprises me is that 80% are completely satisfied... and then its mostly about the other 20%. Also suprising, when you read it carefully is that the M4 malfunctions are pretty low. Plus... the really odd thing is the introduction of accessories being involved in more malfunctioning guns than those without. Interesting...

[sjohnson]

Why odd that accessories increase stoppages? KISS principle says that iron sights and cartridges should be the most reliable combination, as it's the simplest.

The more devices involved, the more likely that a needed device will fail, causing a stoppage.

[cphilip]

I don't know of any device that interferes with the mechanisms do you? So why would they cause malfunctions? What accessory do you know of that would interfer with the function of the "go bang"? They are all appendages that work or don't they should not be involved in the mechanisms that make the gun fire.

Perhaps those types spend more time making sure their accessories function than they do their gun?

[sjohnson]

The report said stoppage, not failure to go bang.

So, if you're dependant on, for instance, a night vision scope and it fails, you're stopped. You can still go bang but so what? You're setup for night vision, there goes your tactics.

Same with any accessory I can think of. Unless the firearm is designed dual-purpose you're stuck if the accessory stops you.

Grenade launcher doesn't. Now you have a small bomb on the muzzle.

Flashlight keeps you in the dark. You WERE using it, at the least you're stopped until you re-evaluate your tactic(s).

Reddot quits. How do you now acquire your target?

Every time you add an accessory, you become dependant on it. You become "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage." Such as ripping off the scope, allowing eyesight to adjust to dark after using night vision, ripping the grenade off the muzzle of your M4, etc.

[cphilip]

Well I don't think thats what they mean by stoppage. They said out of the fight. Or clearing and continuing. I believe they mean the gun jammed or failed to cycle by the term "stoppage" but... who knows... You could be right. You should always have some way to fire the gun and point it in the direction no matter what accessory you have. I don't know many that do not. But... maybe they mean that I dunno. No matter what thing you have, you should be able to sling lead in the general direction I would think. If its not jamming.

[Ding]

What they need ta do is split the work load of the small cal(5.56) and supliment it with the 7.62.A combination of the two would benefit all.You have penetration and stopping power.Heavy cals.like the M-14,M-60E3 or the 240 would make for a real bad day for the bad guys.Get rid of those attachments and get down to fightin.Something with looser tolerances that is not prone to jam up.Too much technology is not always a good thing when it comes down to the ground pounder.The back bone of the fighting is done by men.

[cphilip]

Well that may have some merrit but... did you expect that 80% of them would be satisfied? Thats a lot higher number than one would expect if there were a lot of problems. Their must not be as many as is oft talked about.

[KernelKrink]

After seeing the numerous TV prograams devoted to the Army's "testing" of Dragon Skin armor and the Israeli Anti RPG system, one wonders if this is a similar situation: The outcome was determined long before any interviews took place.

[akjim]

you guys have typically a hell of a lot more experience then I but could the numbers be skewed by the definition of "Combat Duty"? Just had a friend return from Afganhistan, was technically in a combat zone. He was one of the lucky ones, didn't fire his weapon in combat once, mostly built bridges, schools, water systems etc. So if for example he was interviewed the results get skewed. I have seen a number of reports on the desire to go back to a .45 acp. from in field troops that have seen combat.

[7.62Blaster]

If you can put your bullets where you want them, it doesent matter hw big they are.

A head shot at 100-150 yards with 5.56 will kill. Period.

[ftierson]

If you can put your bullets where you want them, it doesent matter hw big they are.

A head shot at 100-150 yards with 5.56 will kill. Period.

A head shot with a .22LR at 100-150 yards will likely also kill...

That's just fine if you can always shoot them in the head...

Forrest

[cphilip]

Well... with the 5.56 round you have a more likely chance to do so... Pretty good accuracy all said and done with that round.

[Ding]

Who in the frak is gonna have time ta take head shots when the shit is flyin.Ya take the quickest shot at the largest part of the body ta put the guy down.Then ya clean up with head shots when ya walk up ta see if there are any alive, then pop em.Maybe in a perfect world when the guy is standing there for ya and not shootin back or doesn't see ya and the 7.62 will work better at longer distances.That's just my thought on this.

[cphilip]

Another point I guess should be mentioned is the title of the article...

Who wouldn't? :D

[Ding]

Touche' :tongue_sm
Stoppage and malfunctions have a large array of probabilities.Due to environment,mechanical,soldier upkeep/mantainance,factory or just plain design and then add failure of a critical part.All these factor in and then add new technologies to that equation will take the simple design of the weapon for what it was designed to do and fail ,now ya have a problem.

[cphilip]

Yea... I guess what we ALL want is a weapon that you fire randomly in the general direction and they all fall dead. Selectively yet immediately. I don't think it takes a survey to get that answer.

[Ding]

I guess what we ALL want is a weapon that you fire randomly in the general direction and they all fall dead
That's called artillary.:small_gri

[cphilip]

Although it tends to lack "selectivity"...

[DutchV]

Guess nobody brought the guys in the field up to speed on the theory of modern warfare - i.e., don't kill your opponent, but wound him & make his buddies carry him out. Ideally, that takes three guys out of the fight instead of just one.

Of course, that only works against opponents who want to live.

[bushman]

whatever

[cphilip]

Guess nobody brought the guys in the field up to speed on the theory of modern warfare - i.e., don't kill your opponent, but wound him & make his buddies carry him out. Ideally, that takes three guys out of the fight instead of just one.

Of course, that only works against opponents who want to live.

I think that particular theory only works against us.

[bushman]

Theory is one thing, but when contact is made, the only practice is to kill every motherfucker who resembles a threat. Dead men don't live to fight again.

[AK_CZ]

The wound theory is good, but when you are dealing with an enemy that is shooting up morphine or adrenaline he can take many wounds. I'd rather drop him dead in his tracks right there.

Besides, we are also dealing with an enemy that could care less about carrying it's own wounded off the battlefield. Remember most of the times they want to die a martyr. It's like trying to wound a Kamikaze fighter instead of killing him...makes no sense in this instance.

[DutchV]

I certainly don't agree with the theory, but I'm told that was the rationale for choosing a lighter cartridge.

You can't hunt deer with a .223. It isn't enough power to reliably kill an enemy combatant, either.

[partymember]

i vote we bring back 7.92 Kurz.

[Koyotejager]

Well if there not using the 6.8SPC ammo anymore, they could ship all of it back and surplus it out. I like it!

[Koyotejager]

i vote we bring back 7.92 Kurz.

7.92 short?

[cphilip]

You can't hunt deer with a .223. It isn't enough power to reliably kill an enemy combatant, either.

Sure you can and people do and are quite effective with it

And sure it will. We score real big in the body count ratio every time.

80% of the guys using them believe they are fine... according to the survey.

[Ding]

You can't hunt deer with a .223. It isn't enough power to reliably kill an enemy combatant, either. Umm Dutch,I beg ta differ with ya,I been killin deer since 74' with a Colt AR-15 and I've seen more than a few enemy combatants fall to the small cartridge.Some of my shots have been at 200 meters+/- at the deer and it dropped them in their tracks.Just my thought.

[3 weelin geezer]

I think those opinions are kinda rediculous. They come from people that cant hit the broadside of a barn at 10 ft. Or its the media at work again trying to portray those who serve as a bunch of neanderthals that can't do any thing but blow stuff up and break things. Those who will be buying guns later as civilians and how we must not let that happen....for the children.

Its biased. Most people I talk to would like something smaller and lighter. They complained the M16 was too heavy and wanted M4's. Problem is we didn't HAVE any.

[nf9648]

I would be happy with deadlier ammo.

[7.62Blaster]

Maybe switch over to the AR10 platform, a full length .308 M16 style rifle with A2 sights, and handguards would be nice.

Just a suggestion.

I for one would not mind the little bit of tax needed to pay for ammo expenses and costs of re issuing and buying said rifles.

[partymember]

how about SOCOM 16's?

[partymember]

7.92 short?

yep. Stg. 44's cartridge.

[ColonelKorn]

Wanting "deadlier guns" is most likely why the M-14's were brought back into service.

[Ding]

Wanting "deadlier guns" is most likely why the M-14's were brought back into service.

Ain't that the truth

[3 weelin geezer]

Maybe switch over to the AR10 platform, a full length .308 M16 style rifle with A2 sights, and handguards would be nice.

Just a suggestion.

I for one would not mind the little bit of tax needed to pay for ammo expenses and costs of re issuing and buying said rifles.I wouldn't mind it either. Especially if all those "new" M16's found their way into the tranferable community. :small_gri

[jarhead4life]

the last thing i'd want to be carrying is 210 rounds of .308, plus a heavier rifle. There's nothing wrong with the M-16, it works just fine. The M4 is everyone's goal, those things are sweet. The ammo works just fine. I always aim for the pelvis. Those skinny fucks are so mal-nutritioned that if you get a chest shot there's a good chance he'll get in a truck and die somewhere where you can't point and laugh. A good pelvis shot, and he's not going anywhere, plus they're a big target that doesn't bob and move, stays right there, and for a quick shot, that's your best bet.

[partymember]

the last thing i'd want to be carrying is 210 rounds of .308, plus a heavier rifle. There's nothing wrong with the M-16, it works just fine. The M4 is everyone's goal, those things are sweet. The ammo works just fine. I always aim for the pelvis. Those skinny fucks are so mal-nutritioned that if you get a chest shot there's a good chance he'll get in a truck and die somewhere where you can't point and laugh. A good pelvis shot, and he's not going anywhere, plus they're a big target that doesn't bob and move, stays right there, and for a quick shot, that's your best bet.

pelvis shot, eh?

never considered that...good info!

[Mandaree36]

If you can put your bullets where you want them, it doesent matter hw big they are.

A head shot at 100-150 yards with 5.56 will kill. Period.


+1

I just saw some outrageous numbers of rounds expended per kill - they show a whole new level of spray and pray shooting. Which is sad considering the optics and rifles they are using.

Just my .02

And no I cannot remember what the round count per kill was - but they mentioned the round count for Vietnam and it was at least double.

[tdbrown1969]

is this why they developed the 6.8mm bullet for better knockdown power,i agree though head shot kills almost everytime,except in the case of this cabbie here in michigan quite a few years ago some guy robbed him at gun point and then shot him like 5 or 6 times in the back of the head at point blank range with a .22 pistol all the bullets went through the flesh of the scalp then went in differant directions lodging between the skull and the scalp,he drove himself to the hospital and was released the next day,ouch didn't kill him but i bet it hurt like hell.tdbrown

[jarhead4life]

rounds per kill in vietnam for the m-16 was 50,000 per enemy kill. FA is a waist of ammo.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/sniperschool.htm

[tdbrown1969]

rounds per kill in vietnam for the m-16 was 50,000 per enemy kill. FA is a waist of ammo.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/sniperschool.htm
is this why they developed the m-16 to shoot a burst of 3 instead of full auto,tdbrown

[hub999]

I think they should switch to soviet 5.45X39 it's not just .22....

[jarhead4life]

is this why they developed the m-16 to shoot a burst of 3 instead of full auto,tdbrown

I never use 3 round burst. Semi all the way.

[3 weelin geezer]

FA is a waist of ammo.

Ya, but its fun as hell..http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g257/3_weelin_geezer/smileys/laughinguntilexplode.gif..Especially when its some one else's ammo!

[DeanD]

The talk about the "wounding theory" has only one problem...he is wounded and you are dead. A wounded man can still kill you.

All this shooting into jelly never impressed me too much. Being behind a big tree and the bullets coming through and putting splinters in your face will impress the hell out of about anyone.

The 7.62 x 39 is the standard to be improved upon.

"rounds per kill in vietnam for the m-16 was 50,000 per enemy kill. FA is a waist of ammo."

A gross misuse of statistics. Dividing one number by another doesn't always yield any meaningful result. Much of Vietnam was dense foliage with limited visibility. If you suspect there are enemy up there would you rather walk up and volunteer to be the first to die finding out or would you rather hose the whole friggin area down with automatic fire and walk up to a couple of dead enemy left lying on the ground?

That said, I agree that FA in most situations where you can see your target is not as good as SA and a waste of ammo. I just don't buy the arithmetic.

"A head shot at 100-150 yards with 5.56 will kill. Period."

Totally agree, even a .22 LR will probably do that. Only problem is actually doing it. Ever try a head shot at a running man? Most of the enemy don't stand still in the open while you take aim. Odds are much better with a controlled small burst of 7.62. Even if you hit him in the leg he will go down and then you an take that aimed shot.

[7.62Blaster]

how about SOCOM 16's?


Really, not a bad choice at all.

I had the good fortune to shoot one, at 950 yards with an optic, I was holding a steady two foot group after six magazines.

Did not get to shoot the rifle without the glass, so I cannot tell you the practical accuracy with iron sights.