02-19-2013, 05:24 AM
cory Wrote:If we're talking about an assault rifle for the army you have a solid argument. However, for the Marine Corps the 5.56 mm caliber Assault Rifle is Sub-Standard.
Every Marine is at a MINIMUM a marksman. We hold a high standard of marksmanship in the Corps, which carries over in the field. When a Marine puts two in the chest, there shouldn't be any question in rather he'll be dead within seconds. The Marine Corps has always done more with fewer numbers, and the level of marksmanship has been a critical factor in that.
This is not the philosophy of the Army, as I understand it. The philosophy of the Army has always revolved around numbers. I'm not trying say no one in the Army can shoot, what I'm saying is the Army strategy relies on getting maximum firepower/rounds on target. One hit may not kill the enemy, but ten will.
What I'm trying to get at is upgrading the Army's assault rifles may or may not raise the effectiveness of the solider to make the change beneficial. (I do believe it would, but that's just my patriotic opinion) However, upgrading a Marine's assault rifle would drastically increase his effectiveness, in my professional opinion.
The Army's doctrine that drives Rifle marksmanship, with regard to infantry units, is basically the same as the Marines, in that individual riflemen in the infantry squad take well-aimed shots on SEMI only, to reduce targets of opportunity. The Army and Marines rifle marksmanship training approaches have been quite different, but major changes have taken place over the past several years, especially in the areas of including Close Quarters and shoot-move events.
The Army's Qualification range uses pop-up, 3D human silhouettes from 50m to 300m that have minimum exposure times, and need to be successfully engaged within the exposure. The Marines focus on shooting KD ranges out to 500m, learning to read the wind, use of the M16A2 rear sight assembly for elevation, under slow-fire and rapid-fire that are closer to what you would see at an NRA Hi-power match.
I think both systems should be combined, as the skill of being able to shoot accurately quickly, as well as accurately at distance, are both valid. The wind-reading and elevation correction skills should be bread & butter to any combat arms soldier. The reality is that both organizations don't shoot anywhere near enough due to institutional constraints, but it often depends on the unit and the leadership climate.
I can tell you that the Marine's Infantry Officer Course is one of the finest warrior leadership schools available, based on what I've seen, and the Army should emulate it. The problem is that there isn't the leadership initiative in the positions that have the authority to make it happen, because they are not of the warrior cloth or ethos.
There needs to be a balance between close-range, compact carbines, and DMR's, but I don't think a 20" is needed for the DM's, especially when you look at 77gr. Even a 16" works fine. There is great video of Marine DM's with SPR's making head-shots at 400m in Afghanistan, and the Taliban didn't even know where the fire was coming from. The current mix of green tip for riflemen and 77gr for DM's makes a lot of sense.
What doesn't make sense is the 5.56 belt-fed SAW, a 27.6lb 7.62 NATO belt-fed machine gun, and a 7.62 NATO SASS all in the system. Those 3 weapons should be chambered in the same cartridge, while reducing the cartridge size, recoil and projectile wind deflection, but increasing its sectional density and penetration. That is where the Grendel comes into play.
Likelihood of happening? Probably not...