Quote:
Originally posted by DanUCSB
Not really what I'm getting at. Knockdown is always a factor, but I'm with NDD on this point: yeah, there's a difference, but the first, second, and third factor is shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement, and then and only then knockdown. It doesn't matter how powerful the rifle you're shooting if you can't hit what you're aiming at.
I'm just advocating the point expressed to me by several friends coming back from OIF... that being, the desire for a rifle that can (accurately) cover more ground, and penetrate a bit more. I'm not a party to the Hackworth-type group bitching about the 5.56 as a 'mouse gun'... it's more than sufficient to put someone down, and keep him there. What I'm worried about is making sure our boys have what's needed to deliver sufficient foot-pounds past, say, 200m, accurately. That's where I'm hearing the most bitching, in RL and on this board, about the M4. 
--Dan
|
It isn't the M-4, it is the short barrel and the ammo. The M855 is guilty of poor accuracy, and the short barrel reduces velocity and therefore the lethality of the ammo at anything beyond point blank ranges. We currently have a 3-5 moa load with the primary wounding function limited to no more than 150m. or so.
They don't like the ability to put the bullet where they want it with the current rifle and ammo, wait till they get a 12" barrel and the new lead-free "green" ammo. Welcome to a sub-100 m. killing weapon and 6 moa ammo.
The right direction is limiting the number of soldiers with M-4s and carbines, and going to the 77gr. Mk 262, Mod 2 ammo while looking for a better ammo solution. Look at the success of the SPR with that ammo.
FYI, the 7.62x51 M80 Ball is no more effective than the 5.56x45 on average, and is less so when the 5.56 fragments.
Too many people offer opinions without data to support their conclusions. Be wary of who you listen to. HTH.
TR