12-02-2011, 09:51 PM
Ain't no way they're going to get even 50% of infantry soldiers to successfully engage man-sized targets at 800m with an individual service rifle or carbine with even a high probability of a 2nd-round hit. Do these PEO gurus know what they're asking for? Clearly they don't. The M4 and M16 can already lob rounds at an 800m area target no problem, but if we're talking about making 1st or 2nd-round hits with a service rifle, most of your B4 qualified guys would have a tough time doing that with an M24 in 7.62 with match ammunition and a 10x scope.
These guys are asking for totally unrealistic performance in the field from entry-level soldiers with little marksmanship training, and are doing it with a tool-based approach. 800m is .300WM and up territory for 1st-round hit. A .260 Rem or 6.5x47 Lapua can do it easily with a trained shooter who knows how to estimate the range and adjust for the conditions, but Joe tentpeg will not be doing it, especially with a carbine or rifle that he will then enter and clear a room or alley with. This is insane. Yes, I can and have run my .260 AR10 in close-in stages and then punched out to distance with it, but the weight penalty, barrel life, and load limitations are all in the over-kill side of the equation for most of the work an Infantryman will do.
Think about supporting tasks after you have walked across the kill zone at night doing an ambush, where compactness and lightweight really come into play. You get called out to search bodies, collect equipment, maybe perform first aid on an EPW, etc. WWII soldiers didn't have AT4's, combat lifesaver bags, and armor strapped to them. They still got it done with a heavier rifle than necessary because they were tough and determined, as future infantrymen will be of they get saddled with some overweight albatross, but we shouldn't advocate it.
We're basically asking for .260 Rem performance at distance, with 5.56 performance at close range, within the weight parameters of an M4, with a barrel life of the 7.62 NATO, with the recoil comparable to 5.56, and a comparable load capacity of the 5.56. We're a little closer to that than we were in the 1930's, but not just there yet.
Our focus again should be on replacing 7.62 NATO, which is a major uphill battle due to commonality across vehicle-mounted MG's.
These guys are asking for totally unrealistic performance in the field from entry-level soldiers with little marksmanship training, and are doing it with a tool-based approach. 800m is .300WM and up territory for 1st-round hit. A .260 Rem or 6.5x47 Lapua can do it easily with a trained shooter who knows how to estimate the range and adjust for the conditions, but Joe tentpeg will not be doing it, especially with a carbine or rifle that he will then enter and clear a room or alley with. This is insane. Yes, I can and have run my .260 AR10 in close-in stages and then punched out to distance with it, but the weight penalty, barrel life, and load limitations are all in the over-kill side of the equation for most of the work an Infantryman will do.
Think about supporting tasks after you have walked across the kill zone at night doing an ambush, where compactness and lightweight really come into play. You get called out to search bodies, collect equipment, maybe perform first aid on an EPW, etc. WWII soldiers didn't have AT4's, combat lifesaver bags, and armor strapped to them. They still got it done with a heavier rifle than necessary because they were tough and determined, as future infantrymen will be of they get saddled with some overweight albatross, but we shouldn't advocate it.
We're basically asking for .260 Rem performance at distance, with 5.56 performance at close range, within the weight parameters of an M4, with a barrel life of the 7.62 NATO, with the recoil comparable to 5.56, and a comparable load capacity of the 5.56. We're a little closer to that than we were in the 1930's, but not just there yet.
Our focus again should be on replacing 7.62 NATO, which is a major uphill battle due to commonality across vehicle-mounted MG's.