Gun Trouble by MG (Ret.) Robert H. Scales, The Atlantic
The rifle that today's infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s—and it is badly flawed. Military lives depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic. So why can't the richest country in the world give its soldiers better ones? …
Any lost edge, however small, means death. A jammed weapon, an enemy too swift and elusive to be engaged with aimed fire, an enemy out of range yet capable of delivering a larger volume of return fire—any of these cancel out all the wonderfully superior and expensive American air- and sea-based weapons that may be fired in support of ground troops. A soldier in basic training is told that his rifle is his best friend and his ticket home. If the lives of so many depend on just the development of a $1,000, six-pound composite of steel and plastic, why can’t the richest country in the world give it to them? …
Comments
The rifle that today's…
The rifle that today's infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s. The M16A2 was followed by the M16A4, which are now being replaced by the M4 carbine equipped with a rail system to mount various accessories such as sights, grips and lights. My friend asked me to read this article to know about the tips to deposit less and earn more in the casino.
>Perhaps the question might be better applied in relative terms of small unit, small arms composition, rather than a general replacement of type...
Thats a really good point. I think the issue there would be that if you made equipment choices around unit composition, you could end up making your unit composition rather fixed until you get new equipment, although that may always be the case to some extent. Wouldnt it still be better to have a broader range of capability in the basic infantry weapon though, as that could allow for more flexibility in unit composition and specialty weapons/roles? If nothing else, if theres a worse case scenario, units might not stay intact, so the basic weapon should aim to be good enough in most situations.
I cant find the link right now, but the forums here had an interesting report on how heavy weapons do most of the heavy lifting, and are rifles mostly provide support (its also my understanding that this was the basis for German tactics in WWII, with rifles supporting machine guns). If this is found to be true, what may be needed is a system where infantry rifles can fire two types of bullets without needed heavy, duplicate parts like barrels or uppers. That way, not only could riflemen easily adapt to changing needs (a smaller round and a heavier one), they could always carry the heavier round used by a machine gun (allowing riflemen to help support heavy weapons).
I know this sounds like wishful thinking, and it is, but maybe its better to ask whats needed and then try to find a way to make it possible. Weapons like the Stoner 63 and the Shrike are easily converted from belt fed to box magazines, so it should be possible for the average infantry person to carry and use ammunition which they can share with a machine gunner. Recent developments in automatic shotguns, if not adaptable to rifles, show that a single weapon should be able to fire a wider range of ammunition. Even the wide range of weapons in the 30 caliber range could be seen as evidence that a single barrel should be able to work with two very distinct cartridges (although twist rate will be an issue).
What's really required are two cartridges, one with assault rifle like performance, the other in the battle rifle range, that are the same caliber, and work with the same twist rate and forcing cone, and then a weapon that can fire both (having an extendable or swappable chamber, and either operates with a wife range of pressures or has something like an adjustable gas system).
I know this is a crazy idea from a random person, but I think we should ask what's needed for a new rifle provide a real step forward. Id be arguing for just a minor improvement, but with how long we've went with our current platform, we may be stuck with any new rifle for a long time.
MG Scales' critique almost reads like advocacy towards the general adoption of the battle rifle over the assault rifle carbine, which would go against current Western military trend.
As U.S. tactical airpower remains omnipotent in most cases of open warfare, it would seem that in most cases of urban warfare, where the opponent is usually armed with AK-type assault rifles, the advantage of the smaller caliber in being able to carry a larger number of rounds would be of advantage, as is the current case in the fielding of the M4 and G36.
There have been cases where the range and knockdown capability of a battle rifle is desirable, as has been identified in certain firefights taking place during OIF. Likewise, this was experienced during the Iran-Iraq War, where there were typical battlefield experiences of Iranian G3 battle rifles outranging Iraqi AK-type assault rifles.
Perhaps the question might be better applied in relative terms of small unit, small arms composition, rather than a general replacement of type which if my reading of MG Scales criticism is correct, this is what he is advocating.