Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanistan

questions, comments , film clips and pictures on guns and weapons and HEST.

Moderator: Hitoru

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby diamondcutter13 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:46 pm

LWRC makes a decent piston AR, the only one I've really put any rounds through. Meh, didn't impress me much, the "felt recoil" was different. Not better, just different. Made the gun much more picky about the ammo you feed it, a combat weapon fail IMHO.

Many piston conversions of a direct gas impingement AR design suffer from carrier tilt issues, premature buffer tube wear, and other problems from converting a functional design to something else it was not designed to do. Piston AR designs that were engineered to be pistons (like LWRC) enjoy the AR ergonomics but arguably suffer from less problems.

One could say the same thing about the M4, take a functional design like the 20" barrel AR, chop off the barrel and gas system down to 14" but do not change the ammo and then complain that it loses accuracy, reliability, and terminal effect. dur... not exactly a surprise. The issue can be patched with things like new ammo (SOST, Mk262 etc) but you've fundamentally changed the weapon. Chop down the barrel and gas piston system off an FAL or an AK and you deal with similar issues. Comparing battle rifles and the M4 endlessly is a dumb argument best left to gun rags. AR Piston conversions are the commercial answer to the question no soldier really asked.

If piston designs floats your boat I would buy a real piston gun.

One AR variant I'd like to try out is the D.I.G.S. system utilized by the ParaUSA in their TTR. Its an unusual combo of DI system and a piston (sort of) that eliminates the entire need for a buffer tube assembly thus an AR with a folding and extendible stock is possible. Could be just more gun mag/SHOT show junk but I'd like to try one out for myself.
Tacuero ceruisa, vigilate hoc
User avatar
diamondcutter13
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:14 am
Location: The Great White North, Loyalist Township.

Postby el3so » Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:01 am

I knew I read this thing here before. On account of not having claimed my week's quota of cyber-bullying I followed V's sig and wallah...
back in November 2005, the immortal goatballs wrote: The following letter is written by a retired U.S. military officer

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son Jordan, who was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is well (a little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq for a second tour in early 06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to returning to Iraq.

Jordan spent 7 months at Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a birds eye views opinions:

1) The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because its lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the old body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IEDs was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love em. Invaluable for night urban operations.

Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old! With all our technology, its the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

my edit due to TLDR, the original thread from 5,5 years ago is here
Anyway guys, thats it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.
It was back then.
skynet prompt: witty line, a bit offensive, medium levels of spelling error, Rastafy by 10 % or so
User avatar
el3so
Creepy Uncle
 
Posts: 8900
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:25 am
Location: never-ending labyrinth of pain

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby diamondcutter13 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:03 pm

Some more food for thought, USMC circa 2003 from an actual AAR. I'm only cutting and pasting the weapons stuff:

Field Report Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team
Central Iraq 20 April to 25 April 2003

Background ~ In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) fielded
equipment in response to Urgent Universal Need Statements which provided additional capability to I MEF.
At the request of the Combat Assessment Team, MCSC provided three officers to assess UNS / legacy
system items. This was the second trip supported by MCSC personnel in theatre. The following locations
were visited:

An Nasiriyah
Ad Diwaniyah

Observations ~ The following notes are based on discussions with Marines in the field. Accordingly, much
of the information provided is subjective and opinion based. I would recommend appropriate and further
review before taking action. Intent of this discussion is to highlight those areas where the Marine Corps, as
an institution, should consider applying resources in order to improve the identified functional areas. This
report is a result of the efforts of xxx who traveled current USMC battle-space to interview the Marines who are
currently using the gear. Additionally, I conducted a number of camp interviews; those systems are included
in this report:


M16A4 with associated combat optic (ACOG 4x), the West Coast’s SAM Rifle ~ All interviewed were
extremely pleased with the performance and felt it “answered the mail” for the role of the Squad Advanced
Marksman (SAM). All said the fixed 4-power ACOG sight that was included was the perfect solution. It
gave them the ability to identify targets at distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly
acquire the target in the close in (MOUT/room clearing) environment. As above, many “stacked” it with the
AN/PVS-14 to get a true night capability. No Marines present in interviews knew of any situation where the
shooter could shoot the gun to its full capability or outshoot it. Interviewees included STA platoon leadership
and members who are school trained MOS 8541 Snipers. They saw no need for the accuracy and expense
involved in the version being built for the “East Coast” SAM Rifle by Precision Weapons Section (PWS),
WTBN, Quantico. The standard M16A4 with issued optic more than satisfied their requirements.
Distribution among battalions varied. One battalion received (6), one went to each of the three line
companies and three to STA Platoon for the spotters. Other battalions received one per rifle squad.
Regular M16A4’s, no optic, were sent over to theatre to replace M16A2’s. However, they arrived too
late to be distributed and BZO’d prior to start of the war. These weapons remained in storage in Kuwait.
M4 Carbine ~ Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M16’s. They say
that it would have definitely been better in the urban environment because of the confined spaces. Since most
of the operators were operating from a vehicle platform, the smaller weapon would have helped
tremendously for mounting and dismounting.
There were numerous comments that the M16 is too long and cumbersome in the urban fight.
Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches. Others
were trading the rifle for pistols to go into buildings to allow mobility in confined spaces.
There has been a push to get M-4’s to crewmen of the mechanized vehicles, LAR in particular. The
distribution needs to include LAR, AAV’s, Tanks, Motor Transportation, and any other units that may have a
requirement. IWS has fielded some assets to LAR, but not all others. LAR still has mostly M16’s. The M-
16’s are too cumbersome/long for crewmen to employ (get out of the cupola or out of a door/window) in a
timely manner while under stress such as when receiving fire.


M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) ~ The SAW’s are worn out and apparently beyond repair. They have
far exceeded their service life. Many Marines are duct taping and zip tying the weapons together.
Reconnaissance units were requesting parasaw, infantry units requesting collapsible buttstock.
5.56mm vs. 7.62 Lethality ~ 5.56mm “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as the shots were in the
head or chest they went down” were typical quotes from several Marines; many who were previously very
skeptical of 5.56mm ammunition. Most of the interviewed Marines who reported targets not going down
and/or could still fight were referencing non-lethal shots to the extremities. There were reports of targets
receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories need not be described, but are of the rare
superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round. Some Marines did ask about getting the
heaver-grained 5.56mm rounds, up to 77 grain if possible.

M9 Pistol Magazines ~ The magazines are not working properly. The springs are extremely weak and the
follower does not move forward when rounds are removed. If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions
result. If out of the weapon, remaining rounds fall out of the magazine. Dirt and sand does cause some of the
problem with follower movement, but multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the
problem. The main problem is the weak/worn springs. (note: I personally encountered this problem as well.
Say what you will, but I had to break down all magazines daily to clean them. Despite this effort, rounds
routinely “fell” out of the magazine. Forces in contact did not have the time or the luxury to break down
each 9mm magazine daily. M16 magazines worked well. Like many officers, I also traded up to a rifle).
Weapon Backup ~ Many infantrymen are requesting that all operators have an issued backup weapon, (i.e.
M9 pistol) to augment their T/O weapon. If they can’t get pistols for secondary weapon purposes, they need
more pistols available for MOUT operations to operate in very confined spaces, stairwells, etc. They request
at least one per squad; minimum, one per fire team; better.

Rifle Propelled Grenade ~ Many Marines are requesting Rifle Propelled grenades to augment or replace the

M203. The M203 doesn’t have an adequate range capability. (note: this desire stems from the fact that the
most effective weapon employed against coalition forces was the RPG).

M240G Medium Machine Gun ~ Marines who did not really know what to expect were extremely impressed
with effects on target.


M1014 Joint Service Shotgun / Breaching Kit ~ Units lack a means to mechanically breach in the MOUT
environment. Some units bought kits from various vendors with their own funds. Satisfaction with various
kits was determined by success of breaching, which is the result of what they were breaching and whether the
kit had the right gear for the given situation (usually dependent on what the unit spent on the kit). Many
operators pointed out that battering rams proved ineffective against most doors encountered. A majority of
the doors (both interior and exterior) were heavy steel and often reinforced with cross bars. Most agreed that,
at a minimum, small units need to have a shotgun to breach the doors. For units both with and without the
kits, the shotguns would have made them more successful. Only six (6) M1014 shotguns were issued to each
infantry battalion. This quantity is not enough. Operators are asking for at least one per squad at a minimum.
The round/ammunition that was needed in this environment was the slug. Units tried using 00 Buck, which
did not work well. CEB expressed a desire to have more urban breaching tools (they were always short),
more route reconnaissance kits, and more tactical bolt cutters (short version).


Weapon Take-Down Pins ~ Many weapons, M16 and M249 in particular, were having problems with
takedown pins breaking and/or falling completely out of the weapons. Marines held weapons together with
duct tape and/or zip ties. The problem seems to be that sand would get into the spaces around the pins,
grinding down the metal.

Enemy Engagements ~ Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms
(5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The
maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well
under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various
sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10)
to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would
“push” a max range of 200m only.
Tacuero ceruisa, vigilate hoc
User avatar
diamondcutter13
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:14 am
Location: The Great White North, Loyalist Township.

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby cowboycraig » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:17 pm

The article didn't mention the government model 1911 in detail. To me that is the best handgun around. I know it is dated in many ways... but in my "experience" with it in the field (Somalia) found that it has one feature Glock's and Beretta's don't have. You can beat someone in the head with it and not hurt break the weapon, just the head. It is a nice heavy piece of metal you can use like a mace.

After all when you are using a handgun you are already "too close" to the enemy. So close that beating them in the head is as likely as shooting them.

CC
cowboycraig
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby AztecDave » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:01 am

I dunno. Not real sold on the safety mechanism. Keeping a cocked weapon with only a thumb safety (and an iffy grip safety) to keep it from blowing a large hole in you doesn't seem the best way to go. Have had two 1911s - a Colt and a S&W. Was never at ease with 'em. Much preferred my SIG SAUER P220. Could decock it and then safety it.
The real Army, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the army in which I should like to fight.”
― Jean Lartéguy
User avatar
AztecDave
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:26 pm
Location: Look behind you

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby Rhah » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:49 pm

I love all my SIGs, my P229 being crazy accurate right out of the box, but the 1911 is about as safe as you can get. The thumb safety blocks the rotation of the sear, there is just no way the hammer can drop. The grip safety blocks the rearward movement of the trigger, hence no sear movement. Unless someone had an aftermarket thumb/grip safety fitted by somebody who had no clue as to the proper engagement angles needed on those two parts it is 100% safe. I have never seen a production gun fail those two safety checks.

But hey SIGs are great fuckin guns and I do love the decock feature myself.
"I am content to die as are all our comrades. But I will not let myself be slaughtered like a sheep. I would rather face the blow. Strike straight at my face and watch carefully if I pale at all.”
User avatar
Rhah
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby cowboycraig » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:53 pm

AztecDave wrote:I dunno. Not real sold on the safety mechanism. Keeping a cocked weapon with only a thumb safety (and an iffy grip safety) to keep it from blowing a large hole in you doesn't seem the best way to go. Have had two 1911s - a Colt and a S&W. Was never at ease with 'em. Much preferred my SIG SAUER P220. Could decock it and then safety it.


Good point always has bothered me also. My daily carry is a Springfield Armory XD9. Does not feel like I am going to shoot myself. But if I was heading for trouble and knew it, would have my 1911. The way the Springfield Armory XD series are the smoothest dang nice handguns ever. In my opinion...

I do believe the 1911 is safe though. After many years in the military and seeing them in the field, have never seen on go off unintended. Even after being dropped!

Also seeing that hammer pulled back while in the holster unsettles people. Kind of a preemptive "F* you" that has a very solid effect.

CC
cowboycraig
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby Lost Boy » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:25 am

Agreed. The 1911 is one of the finest handguns ever made. In fact, it was recently just elected the state handgun for Utah officially. A its my every day carry piece as well. I've even won a few competition matches with it for the udpl and local idpa. I higly recommend it and not j ust because the .45 calib is rock hard reliable for creating big holes ipeople. As they say, no one whose ever been I a gu night has ever wished they had a smaller gun afterwards.
"If a principle exists it must be immutable, for that is what a principle is - a truth standing apart from the mood of the times." - Jeff Cooper
User avatar
Lost Boy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:31 pm
Location: California

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby diamondcutter13 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:36 pm

I have no issue with pistols like the 1911 and the Browning High Power that need to be carried cocked, safety on, round in the spout. Old skool tech. I've competed lots with both and carried the BHP lots in that state in combat, no problems. Having said that, I train and practice with my pistols quite a bit. That's not the case for the majority of people carrying pistols in bigger organizations and carrying in that state can create confidence issues in the untrained masses. Pistols with de-cocking levers like the M-9 and the Sig series are much safer for general issue IMHO. Too bad no one designed a rifle with a de-cocking feature/hammerless double action trigger in place of a safety, it would eliminate many stupid negligent discharges on unloading drills you see in the military so much (then again so would doing your safety drills properly in the first place).

As a note about the M-9 having difficulty with feeding due to fatigued mag springs - its not a issue just with M-9s. I have a Beretta 92FS and have zero issues with it or the mags but when the mag springs fatigue - as they most certainly will with use and age, they must be replaced. Mags and springs don't last forever with heavy use, neglect etc, gun guys know this but lets face it, the army is cheap. They'll issue that junk forever. My issue Browning High Power I am carrying right now was likely made in 1944 based on its serial number, it functions well but some of the magazines that come with it are just as old. Turns a fine pistol into a 1 pound non-returning boomerang suitable only for throwing at your foe in anger. Needless to say I made sure I got some good mags before deployment...
Tacuero ceruisa, vigilate hoc
User avatar
diamondcutter13
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:14 am
Location: The Great White North, Loyalist Township.

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby praharin » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:29 pm

AztecDave wrote:Only thing wrong with the M16/M4 design is the gas operation method. If it used a buffer system (like the HK416) vice actual gas expansion into the chamber, there's no real issues. Was at the range here 2 weeks ago and put about a thousand rounds thru my M4 in a few hours. Shot very accurately out to distance (was shooting to 250-300m). No stoppages or malfunctions. But cleaning it later - was a ton of carbon buildup in/on the chamber & bolt carrier group. With a buffer system, there's no gas blowback into the chamber. I understand that there's an OTS conversion kit to convert to a buffer system. Anybody?

here's a you tube video on the HK 416
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObXZMepn ... A344528958


The carbon isn't getting into the chamber, that's true. However, it's still building up on the piston. That's based on the Law of Conservation of Mass. You cannot eliminate matter in the process, it's still going somewhere, and you WILL still have to clean it. That's why the "M243 Squad Assault Weapon" kit comes with a scraper; for the piston.

The biggest problem with the direct gas impingement system is the internet.

You know what piston ARs have that DI ARs don't? Carrier tilt. Google it.


I for one, vote that every single infantry troop be issued the "M243 Squad Assault Weapon" because it's obviously the most "1337" weapon available.


Seriously? There are so many incongruousness in that article that I find it hard to believe that anyone educated about the military in any can even read the whole thing.

lame!
User avatar
praharin
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:35 am

Re: Combat weapons "report card" from a Marine in Afghanista

Postby BillyOblivion » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:15 am

cowboycraig wrote:The article didn't mention the government model 1911 in detail. To me that is the best handgun around. I know it is dated in many ways... but in my "experience" with it in the field (Somalia) found that it has one feature Glock's and Beretta's don't have. You can beat someone in the head with it and not hurt break the weapon, just the head. It is a nice heavy piece of metal you can use like a mace.
After all when you are using a handgun you are already "too close" to the enemy. So close that beating them in the head is as likely as shooting them.


I own Glocks and Berettas, and I call bullshit on that.

Tell you what, let ME beat you on the head with my Beretta. No? My Glock 19? 26.

Yeah. Thought so.

Now, if you think the .45 is a superior round, that's been an argument for over a century and there's no solution in sight, except for 10mm.
BillyOblivion
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:58 am

Previous

Return to Guns, Knives, Gear, Tech and ....STUFF!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests