from
www.defensetech.com
I especially enjoyd some of the comments that I included in the last sections.
"Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang"
Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.
Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.
"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.
The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.
Download the entire CNA report here (2MB pdf).
"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.
CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.
"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."
The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.
In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.
The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.
Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.
But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.
Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."
"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."
The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.
"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.
A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.
Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.
Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.
-- Christian
May 25, 2007 01:30 PM | Guns
Latest Comments
bring back the Colt .45. I was not able to use a pistol because the REMF's in my BN wanted them not the guys who went on missions. I used an M4 and never had any serious problems. the ones I did have were on the range and corrected prior to any mission(s). the dust was not that bad in my AO but I know there are others whose were just dusty as hell. The Army needs a new weapons system and soon. I remember the 6.8 being suggested but no heard anything about it being procured for use.
Posted by: chris at May 31, 2007 03:22 PM
I am an antique but, I am interested in our people haveing the gear they need. It is a hard enough job to be tied to "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" with weapons that are at least equal to the insurgents. Body armor and helmets need to be tested using AK47's not 5.56 M16's. If we are going to have politicians dictating rules, they need to be required to spend some time embebed with the troops. The alternative is let the field commander dictate the rules. Side arms need to be at least 40cal, least cost would be reissue the M1911. Rifles need to be minimum 7.62 original NATO. Some people seem to object to the weight of the M14 however, they are like their kin, the old M1 that you knew was going to work. Rain, mud, sand, snow and ice, both of those work have such a low failure rate it isn't even measured. In a fight you can count on it until you run out of amunition and can't find anymore. With the track record of what we have out now, I would say open to everyone or, if you like doing modifications, modify the M14 for weight. I don't recall the M14 as being so heavy, I'd sure prefer it in close quarters. It doesn't break, and the butt or bayonet along with that weight makes it leathal.
Posted by: JMMCRet at May 31, 2007 03:16 PM
From 2004 thru 2005 I was in Ramadi, Iraq with 1MEF. I used the M16A2, M4, M1014, M249SAW, M240G, and M9. Here are my opinions. Our weapon platforms are good and accurate and will function properly when maintained. The problem is when you expose the weapon to dust kicked up by convoys and vehicle traffic. Are you really going to clean your weapon during the middle of a patrol that can last all day? Are you going to keep your weapon inside a plastic bag to maintain it's pristine condition? How do you balance keeping it clean with keeping it available for immediate use? The answer is you can't. The best we could do was to use part of the carry bag for the M240G as a cover when mounted on a vehicle. That way you could shoot through the bag if needed and helped to keep the sand kicked up by the front vehicles from entering the barrel. The receiver was still exposed. You cannot imagine how much dust a small 4 vehicle convoy will kick up even with proper dispersion.
Now compare this with an ak. These weapons can be buried in the dirt floor of an Iraqi home, dug up, and put to immediate use. They are not as accurate because they are machined to looser tolerances. But it is precisely this aspect that allows them to function under all conditions. The 7.62x39 round is accurate enough and lethal enough for the distances in most of our firefights. You can carry more 5.56 rounds but you're going to need every round in your magazine pouches. The weakened spring under compression thing is an urban myth. Springs do not weaken when put under load, it is repeated compression and expansion cycles that weaken them. Go ahead and top off with 30 because you will need every round you have. Mag changes may be a little more difficult so practice often.
I'm out now and I've recently reworked my personal armory. It consists of a 12 gauge shotgun (3" shells), an imported semi-auto ak variant chambered in .308 Win (7.62x51) and a .45.
If I had a choice these would be my primary calibers for combat, but not in an M16 or AR platform. I've heard the Army and Marines are fielding an AR chambered in .308 for designated marksmen. The ak or H&KG3 would be my first choice because of the reliability factor.
Oh and I'd also be wearing dragonskin.
Posted by: GunnyR at May 31, 2007 03:00 PM
I apologize to all the old timers in advance. The dumbest thing I have heard so far is bring back the M14. The M14 was a good weapon in its time, however it lacks the adaptability for modern combat. Whatever weapon is used it has to be able to mount infra-red aiming lights and improved optics. I know the study said accesories made the weapons jam more frequently, but they increase the lethality even more. Modernizing the M14 would be a good idea, but it wouldn't be the M14 anymore.
Posted by: Michael at May 31, 2007 02:49 PM
I love my M4 but I want more power. I would suggest moving to the SOCOM M-1A1 or a .30cal conversion for existing lowers. Also want a change in the M9 from 9mm to .40S&W. The DoD guys at the Pentigon already carry 96F instead of teh 92F/M9 and their MP-5 is .40 too.
Posted by: Anthony at May 31, 2007 02:48 PM
» View All 108 Comments
» Post a Comment
I guess 
Linear Mode
