The future of the standard issue infantry rifle used by American troops in Afghanistan is under review amid concerns that it is the wrong weapon for the job. With its light bullets the M4 rifle lacks sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights, leaving U.S. troops outgunned by the Taleban and their AK47 Kalashnikovs and the old Russian SVD sniper rifle.
British Forces face the same dilemma but the Ministry of Defence said yesterday that there was no plan to review the SA80A2 rifle, which fires the same NATO 5.56mm calibre rounds as its U.S. counterpart. "We constantly review all of our capabilities," a spokesman said. However, Britain has followed the U.S. in investing in 400 new larger-calibre Sharpshooter rifles, which use a heavier 7.62mm round, and are effective at longer ranges. The weapon is expected to be deployed in Afghanistan, alongside the standard rifle, by the end of the month...
More at The Times.
Comments
The AK-47 has some good points as does the M-4. They both have some bad points as well. So how do we fix this?
The answer is so simple... And really pretty cheap...
We are going to have to go to a "tool box" concept. Those of you who are hunters will follow. We are going to have to get past the idea that one rifle is going to do it all.
A deer hunter in Maine may never in his life take a shot of 150yds. The average 30.30 Marlin or Winchester will do everything he needs. It has enough power for the range, the range and the accurracy to get it done. But if the same gent goes out to hunt in Missouri, Colorado etc. he will likely encounter farther shots than he did in Maine, therefore he is either going to have to adjust his hunting tactics (will be tough) or get a rifle that is capable at longer ranges. So he decides he needs a 30.06 bolt gun, with a 3-12 power scope. This gets it done for him. But when he gets back to Maine he finds that his new rifle is more than he needs.
The point? You need to select the best gun for the ranges, animal etc you are hunting.
Put another way, there are times and places for 5.56 and times and places for 7.62. We need to have some choices on how to arm our troops depending on where they are going... We don't need 27 guns either. But for rifles the USA Infantryman, Marine INF and SOF guy need to be able to select the tool best suited. Afghanistan is 7.62 country...
The bean counters scream about cost... But you could give every Infantryman, Marine and SOF guy a 5.56 rifle, 7.62 rifle and a .45 pistol as well a small list of other weapons they all aught to have, for the price of one B1 Lancer... And have a lot of money left over.
Additionally how is it we are spending so much money on selecting the next carbine/rifle?
If the boys at the red roof inn, use the Hk-416, then it is good enough for me... Look at how much I just saved the Army.
Very interesting report on this subject "The AK-47: 'The Gun' That Changed The Battlefield" (& Interview with author CJ Chivers):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130493013
Sad thing is you can put a bullpup stock on an m14 and retain the accuracy/reliability of the design while chopping the weapon down to an m4 size platform. I'd be pretty satisfied with a 25/26" platform delivering a .308 out to 800-1000 yards, while still being nimble enough to fight room to room, with enough punch to go through brick walls :-)
We need better trained soldiers and more options for ammunition -not better rifles.
The 5.56x45mm is varmint round that country boys, like me, commonly refer to as .223. For hunting small game and even white tail the .223 is great. The .223 is also the preferred .22 alternative for target shooting and plinking. For hunting humans, however, the round doesn't cut it.
The U.S. can spend billions designing a platform rifle for this round and still fall short of our current AR variants. Indeed, piston driven actions are far more reliable than our current gas-driven M4/M16, but accuracy and distance are unaffected by this development. In all reality the M16 is a far more accurate weapon than the AK47 at longer ranges, but the M4, which was designed to fulfill a close quarters role is closer to par. The true difference is the stopping power-or the ability of the round to transfer the inertia to the target. The 7.62x39 does a far better job here than the hole-penciling 5.56x45 of our M4 and M16. The truth is that we had a better rifle in the M14 than well ever have in the M16 or M4. For close quarters, however the M14 is cumbersome.
Since when do we need ONE rifle for every mission? For raid operations the MP5 fits the build (the old Thompson .45 machine gun is better suited than the M4). For longer range engagements (i.e. Afghanistan) the M16 is OK if the soldiers are trained to utilize the weapon at its full potential (not currently being done), but the M14 is the better weapon.
Soldiers have legitimate complaints about the effectiveness of 5.56; but the issue I saw was not the matchup of M-4 vs. AK.
What struck me was the high percentage of PKMs and RPGs employed by the Taliban, and the use of ICOM radios to coordinate and mass fires for maximum effect.
Couple that with the heavy restrictions on the use of coalition air support and indirect fire, and it make for some bad situations.
AK 47 is designed to take a life on 100 yards. The caliber 7.62 is able to penetrate a concrete block, and steel core round can go through 0.5 inch steel plate. A full jacket round can go through 1/8 inch steel plate. This is not the case for caliber 5.45. The round stuck inside a concrete block and smashed in front of 1/8 inch steel plate. This caliber is deadly against people dressed in pajamas, but 7.62x39 hollow point makes a lot of damage, same as 5.45 caliber.
I bought a Yugoslavian AK 47 for $540, with parts of Military Zastava, and receiver produced by Century and assembled in USA. Under folded stock is a must. The slant muzzle brake is for amateurs, and worsens the accuracy. I replaced it with a Bulgarian with 4 side windows; the flash cant obscure the sight. Added a recoil buffer, and replaced the steel wire with a steel plate at the trigger system. With open sight, front sight at 1, distance 100 yards I group 5 rounds at 4 inches. You have to know how to support the stock, on your shoulder, how to handle your body by bones, not by muscles and more. A have 26 years experience in army with AK 47 and now, I can use the Yugo one, with the same accuracy. No mater, that is only semi auto, the strength of recoil system is for auto, and if you are fast, can fire up to 8 rounds in a second. Tula or Wolf rounds are cheap, but one in 100 rounds misfire. It is a good idea to load the magazines first 3 rounds to fire, with Winchester 7.62x39. AK 47 is not for haunting. AK 47 is a self-defense weapon, to take a life on 3 to 100 yards in self-defense. I hope never to use it, but I prefer to die with my AK 47 in my hands.
Adding a scope you can increase the accuracy, but you cant find fast the target in short distance, and in self defense half of the second means life or death.
In Afghanistan, a real threat would be a Ddragunov, with the Scope, firing Sniper Ammunition.
Schmedlap is right that this is well worn argument. But I have say this Times reporter must be hoping to lure bad guys into more firefights with us so we can kill more. (It's kinder than accusing him of smoking crack.) The AK-47, while marvelously durable, is inaccurate compared to the M16. Indeed, it was so even compared to the M16's earliest 1960's incarnation. Compared to the modern M16A2 and all the high speed sights we add, it's pathetically inaccurate. It barely compares to the M4 and its optics. Now there have been complaints from Afghanistan that the M4 and M16A2 lack the reach to engage insurgents who use heavy machine guns, mortars, and sniper rifles from distant hills and mountains. But not AK-47 users. Yes, the M4 and M16 have their reliablility issues, but with users trained in their use and maintenance they get the job done. They're the reason insurgents love IEDs. And the AK-47? The Weapon Most Likely To Be Found On A Corpse.
<em>"... people are always more impressed by enemy weapons than they are by their own because being on the receiving end is a more memorable experience."</em>
Yup.
And I would add: show me an AK-47 that has fired as many rounds, been on as many field exercises/missions, had as many owners/custodians, and taken as much abuse as the average M-4 in the arms room of a typical Infantry Company. Then we can <em>start</em> making comparisons about range, accuracy, options and considerations for attaching ancillary equipment, weight, size, et cetera.
My interpreter in the Balkans saw more combat that the vast majority of American Soldiers (even today). He fought for years with AK variants. He also fired our weapons when we went to the range (probably a reg against it, I know, but he was no ordinary terp). He preferred the M16A4 and M4 over the AK. Our IA Soldiers also preferred the M4, though I wouldn't hold their assessments in as high regard as my old terp.
The article contains the following statements:
"The age-old AK47 uses a heavier round, which travels farther and with greater accuracy."
and
"The Russians, too, had problems when they occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s: their AK47s failed to match the Second World War bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by the Mujahidin."
Hmm. The AK-47 is more accurate and the 80s Muj mostly used Enfields and such. I think not much attention should be paid to this article.
Something I read once (I don't remember where) said people are always more impressed by enemy weapons than they are by their own because being on the receiving end is a more memorable experience.
Thank you Schmedlap! This is indeed a mindless reoccurring debate that probably stems from the early introduction of the M-16 in Vietnam, that I have been hearing since Ken White got off mess duty.
Certainly the AK-47 is a good cheap monkey see, monkey do firearm and is robust. But it is not of the quality and accuracy of our current M-4 combined with optics.
That said, one would think America could do even better - oh well, we make better aircraft carriers than the Russians.
I agree with Scmedlap and Chris jM. Reminds me of the revolver versus automatic pistol argument. Great for a discussion with a few brewskis around a campfire, or with port around a roaring fire but meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The M4 is better than a 9x19mm sub-machine gun but I prefer 7.62 x 51mm in my assault rifle. Given my advanced years and spinal illness I'd happily carry and M4 without all the Gucci kit, except an optic sight, free floating hand guard and match trigger.
I used to be able to utilise that sort of kit but alas not nowadays without practice. I would get that before deploying anyway and it is liking riding a bike. Just got to get the body used to it again.
Hard to believe the AKM (AK-47 type) is besting current US military carbines, due to advantages in accuracy over distance.
During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian forces equipped with the G3A6 (G3) battle rifle were at a distinct advantage in range and accuracy over their Iraqi counterparts armed with the AKM, in wide open terrain in eastern Iraq.
This is the most mindless debate in the military. More mindless than pop-COIN v. enemy-COIN. This is the military equivalent to arguing over abortion or arguing about creation versus evolution or arguing about same-sex marriage. The views that the overwhelming majority of people have on this topic are divorced from reality and purely emotional. Evidence is cherry picked by both sides.
I will simply insert my broken-record response that I insert into this debate every time that it comes up, because the arguments never change and, thus, neither does my rebuttal.
<a href="http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=94891#post94891">B… record</a>.
Flame on.
Well, I agree with Schmedlap in that the debate has long since exceeded the realms of factual opinion.
I'm split as to whether it is a legitimate topic for public debate, though. I was thinking about the public's influence on military procurement, and whether it is or is not a productive force. Has there ever been any historical equivalent to the M4 debate in the generations past, or is this a relatively new phenomena brought about by the blogosphere?
I'm wondering what would have happened had the English public decried the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, or the American public lamented the Sherman. Probably not much, in my opinion - the important thing is always capability, of which equipment comprises only a part.
If there is a problem, its not the AK-47 vs M-4 issue that is the most popular debate. If there is a problem it is the RPG or the SPG-9 vs M-4. The problem there being that an M-4 is not effective above 500m. the RPG-7 is not accurate at 500m either but it has a suppressive effect. The SPG-9 and B-10 (Chinese "type 65") are effective at above 500m.
The challenge is that in a typical fare ambush by the Taliban, where they shoot a couple of RPGs or SPGs and then scoot, they do have a small chance of hitting something, they do subject the soldiers to the suppressive effects of their weapons and they do leave the soldiers with an unsatified burning desire to retaliate. neither the SPG nor the RPG have greater range than our sniper rifles or the M240B and especially not anything shooting a 12.5mm BMG round. And of course they can be out matched by a mortar, or a Javelin, or just equaled by an AT-4. People just need to keep the enemy capability in mind and choose the proper weapons mix.