M4 in Afghanistan

greener · Post by **greener** » Wed May 26, 2010 9:45 pm

Fox had two articles on the M4. Both seem to say that it is inadequate because ranges. Just wonder how many soldiers are going to routinely make 600 yard shots? The modified M14's or sniper rifles are better for some, but probably not everybody.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/ ... ghanistan/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/21 ... e-m-rifle/

Post by **Bullseye** » Thu May 27, 2010 6:28 am

We've had this discussion before and you know my feelings about the M4 and 5.56mm rounds. If they truly want to improve that platform there's hope with the 6.8 SPC. While 6.8's not as good as the 7.62mm ammo it won't burden down a soldiers combat load out in the field like an M-14 with the heavier rounds can do.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Thu May 27, 2010 7:20 am

Bigger is better especially with bullets.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Thu May 27, 2010 10:02 pm

the hard part is getting the advantages of big bullets and the advantages of little bullets and finding a good happy middle.... I like the 6.8 over the 5.56 but the 7.62 is my pick as well...

greener · Post by **greener** » Fri May 28, 2010 7:25 am

We probably would have been better off buying AK47's or building our own version, if we already didn't have one in the M14. The bigger bullet is better.

I don't think I buy the argument about the M4 is not a long-range shooter and therefore not what the soldiers need. The 600-1000 yard shooter is very likely a bit heavy for all soldiers to carry and a bit unwieldy in close-in situations. Seems that putting more of the bigger guns at the company level and training more guys for longer range accuracy would be better.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Fri May 28, 2010 8:42 am

Greener, I know when yuou think biggerr bulletss, you are thinking 105mm or larger and log range is a few miles.

Mr. Nail · Post by **Mr. Nail** » Fri May 28, 2010 4:31 pm

I hear a lot of soldiers say they prefer M14's over M4's .The accurrassy should be pretty much idenical depending on ammo and optics. The 7.62 is definatlly going to have more knockdown though. If your sniping at longer ranges though I think a 300 win mag would probally do the trick and most of your quick ballistic plex optics are being pin pointed to the 300 win mag while you have to really compair ammo on your other calibers to calibrate to these scopes. As far as the artical, the U.S. might be out gunned during a battle but never a war. (Quote) Mr. Nail. Lol

greener · Post by **greener** » Sat May 29, 2010 7:39 am

bearandoldman wrote:Greener, I know when yuou think biggerr bulletss, you are thinking 105mm or larger and log range is a few miles.

600 yards is awfully close. I do prefer 155mm at 10 kilometers to a rifle at 300-600 yards.

I'd go with the bigger bullet for everyone except it is a long, expensive process. The 5.56 round is OK for Europe and jungles.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sat May 29, 2010 8:04 am

greener wrote:
bearandoldman wrote:Greener, I know when yuou think biggerr bulletss, you are thinking 105mm or larger and log range is a few miles.
600 yards is awfully close. I do prefer 155mm at 10 kilometers to a rifle at 300-600 yards.

I'd go with the bigger bullet for everyone except it is a long, expensive process. The 5.56 round is OK for Europe and jungles.

Just as I thought you go for the larger projectiles, you probably consider the 105mm as a smallbore. Damn, ammoo costs for a day of shooting must run ionto some pretty high numbers.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:02 pm

I say, if you know you are going to get into a gunfight, bring the biggest gun you got and all your freinds with the biggest guns they have.......

greener · Post by **greener** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:56 pm

I'd prefer a battalion 3 rounds (54 155 projo's) and/or an air strike for a reinforced sniper pit to assaulting it with a squad of shoulder fired weapons. However the military doesn't see it that way. So, 7.62 or 6.8 would be better than 5.56.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:25 pm

greener wrote:I'd prefer a battalion 3 rounds (54 155 projo's) and/or an air strike for a reinforced sniper pit to assaulting it with a squad of shoulder fired weapons. However the military doesn't see it that way. So, 7.62 or 6.8 would be better than 5.56.

Got you figured right and have to agree with you BIG GUNS, BIG BULLETS AND LOTS OF THEM, should get the job done easily.

99/100 · Post by **99/100** » Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:55 pm

I had a platoon sgt who'd been in 3rd SOG in Vietnam who showed me a hand sized transmitter they used. They would find large formations of the bad guys and ARC light the grid square they marked with them.

rice paddy daddy · Post by **rice paddy daddy** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:18 pm

greener wrote:
bearandoldman wrote:Greener, I know when yuou think biggerr bulletss, you are thinking 105mm or larger and log range is a few miles.
600 yards is awfully close. I do prefer 155mm at 10 kilometers to a rifle at 300-600 yards.

I'd go with the bigger bullet for everyone except it is a long, expensive process. The 5.56 round is OK for Europe and jungles.

Red Leg, SIR! Steel On Target!
I spent a little time in the 46th Field Artilery Group in 68 & 69.
We had 8" and 175 self propelleds.