Rifle Combat at Less than 300 Meters

[GunTech]

Here's some interesting data from the ACR report.

Performance of the M16 rifle (fixture mounted)

Performance of M16 rifle, record fire (i.e. range scores by soldiers)

Performance of the M16 in simulated combat conditions

Not what happens to hit probability under simulated combat conditions. It is not unlikely that actual combat conditions would show even poorer performance. Data from Iraq seems to support this, given the number of casualties per number of rounds expended. The average range of engagement is about 50 meters.

 

[Caimlas]

Well, I know for a fact that some rifles were actually designed for long-range shooting (300m+), such as the Swedish Mauser. Though, those are the exception, obviously.

I'm thinking that engagement range is primarily determined by available terrain. Let's envision a battle between two groups in, say, the American Southwest, or even parts of the Northern Plains (like North Dakota, where it's basically a desolate alien wasteland). Wind withstanding, you're likely going to see engagements between infantry at any range where there is line of sight, because there isn't much else. Any infantry battles out here would likely require the combatants to come armed with scoped rifles out of necessity - at least today.

 

[GunTech]

In terrain like that, you'd use artillery and airpower.

 

[Roswell 1847]

First of ALL.....the only reason these Jihadis use the PKM is because that's the only extremely common belt fed weapon in the soviet arsenal. That's all they have.

Soviet manufacture Beltfed Light Machineguns in 7.62X39 have been commonplace since the Viet Nam Era. Those intermediate cartridge weapons are much easier to get on the arms market.

That's all they have. You mentioned it can defeat body armor? SO CAN THE 5.56.

And I've seen 5.56 shed its core in tiny ratshot like droplets after going through two inches of wood. The target we set up behind the stump showed that the jacket hit sideways with barely enough energy to penetrate the cardboard backing and the lead spray wouldn't have penetrated a field jacket.
The .30/06 AP rounds we tested would shoot through a tree nearly two feet thick without noticable deflection. I was able to keep all rounds in the target fifty feet behind the tree aiming only by memory of where it was before side stepping to place the tree in the line of fire. I fired from about fifty feet from the tree.

In actual battles Jihadis have fired through interior walls to kill US troops and the M4 Carbine rounds could not penetrate to strike back at them.

In one such action Jihadis lay on the basement floor firing up to kill several of our troops and return fire was completely ineffective.
Armor had to be diverted from another area to blast the house. While waiting for the Armor to get there several more US troops were killed or wounded while making a brave but fruitless attempt to remove our dead and wounded before the house was blown up.

Jihadis have been paying premium prices for WW2 surplus Machineguns for some time now, because they offer an advantage the intermediate round chambered guns do not. Thats much greater penetration.

PS

On Monday, when the Marine assault on foreign fighters formally began, the young Marines of the squad from the 1st Platoon were already exhausted. Their encounter at the house in Ubaydi that morning and the previous night had been the unintended first clash of the operation, pitting them against insurgents who fired armor-piercing bullets up through the floor. It took 12 hours and five assaults by the squad - plus grenades, bombing by an F/A-18 attack plane, tank rounds and rockets at 20 yards - to kill the insurgents and permit recovery of the dead Marines' bodies.

 

[KW]

Consider that a called artillery strike or HE and cannon fire from armored vehicles and/or aircraft is going to be a lot more effective than some soldiers firing rifles at 600 yards. So if you have access to those, you will call on them instead of wasting ammo to possibly wound a man or two. And if your opponent has access to any of those, its probably not a good idea to open up on some guys at that range and give your position away in exchange for a possible casualty or two. Much better to close the range, do some real damage with a quick ambush and fade away, or hug close enough to neutralize the heavy weapons. Even if there are no heavy weapons, a close range surprise attack will still be much more effective.

So what about when there is no terrain? Soldiers have carried entrenching tools for a long time for just such a reason. What if there are heavy weapons to destroy your entrenchments in this open terrain? Well in that case the open terrain can't be defended and you wind up fighting in the cities where you can blend in with the population and use the buildings as cover. And if there are no heavy weapons, the dug in defensive force is nearly invulnerable to long range fire, and so the offensive force will need to use smoke, dust night, etc to close the distance.

Now obviously, trained snipers are exceptions to this. But for a typical infantry unit, even one armed with rifles in long range calibers, there just isn't much benefit to opening fire at these ranges in most situations.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Soviet manufacture Beltfed Light Machineguns in 7.62X39 have been commonplace since the Viet Nam Era. Those intermediate cartridge weapons are much easier to get on the arms market.

Practically nobody makes RPD's anymore and still the PKM is FAR more common.

And I've seen 5.56 shed its core in tiny ratshot like droplets after going through two inches of wood.

I believe I've seen M855 go through a tree trunk about 10-12 inches thick. I'll try to recover the video.

In actual battles Jihadis have fired through interior walls to kill US troops and the M4 Carbine rounds could not penetrate to strike back at them.

So you're saying we should do the same thing, fire blindly into a wall? LOL!
It's bad enough a larger round would mean a soldier will carry lesser amounts of ammo, we should just waste it firing blindly into a wall like dumb terrorists? That's laughable.

In one such action Jihadis lay on the basement floor firing up to kill several of our troops and return fire was completely ineffective.
Armor had to be diverted from another area to blast the house.

Problem solved.

Jihadis have been paying premium prices for WW2 surplus Machineguns for some time now, because they offer an advantage the intermediate round chambered guns do not. Thats much greater penetration.

That's also laughable. Where's your proof that Jihadis like you say, "pay a premium", for WW2 MG's? All I ever see in their hands are Post-WW2 soviet weapons bought from the black market or stolen from god knows where. It seems like you're just making up stuff.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Problem solved.

It took 12 hours and five assaults by the squad - plus grenades, bombing by an F/A-18 attack plane, tank rounds and rockets at 20 yards - to kill the insurgents and permit recovery of the dead Marines' bodies.

Twelve hours that cost the lives of Marines, and diverted Armor from its intended mission.

we should just waste it firing blindly into a wall

When they knew for a fact the enemy was on the other side of the wall it was exactly what they tried to do with their M4 Carbines and failed because the 5.56 wouldn't penetrate.

Reports from the theatre indicated that the jihadis were making special efforts to obtain the more powerful 7.62X54 Caliber MGs whenever possible.
Discoveries of Caches showed that these weapons were being smuggled in and stockpiled.

 

[LAK]

Even though machineguns as we generally refer to them would come in widespread use later, the Boers did have some Maxim machineguns, and various heavier "quick firing" Maxim type guns. Both were in use during the Great Boer War. Shrapnel artllery shells were also in common use.

Regardless of the number of riflemen involved on any given day, the Boers did not use volley fire, and even the British were not given to that order of fire in that conflict. Even when large numbers of riflemen were firing, were it not accurately directed it would not have had the same effect.

If some say that all or even most of these engagements involved massed rifle fire they would be incorrect. Many of the Boers were simply excellent shooters, and coupled with the mauser they gave the British a real hiding in a number of longer range engagements (The British played catch up with them later on in a similar manner).

Just one example of this was at the battle of Colenso. To quote from Aurthur Conan Doyle's "The Great Boer War":

But his two unhappy batteries were destined not to turn the tide of battle, as he had hoped, but rather to furnish the classic example of the helplessness of artillery against modern rifle fire. Not even Mercer's famous description of the effect of a flank fire upon his troop of horse artillery at Waterloo could do justice to the blizzard of lead which broke over the two doomed batteries. The teams fell in heaps, some dead, some mutilated, and mutilating others in their frantic struggles ......

For two hours the little knot of heart-sick humiliated officers and men lay in the precarious shelter of the donga and looked out at the bullet-swept plain and the line of silent guns. Many of them were wounded. Their chief lay among them, still calling out in his delirium for his guns. They had been joined by the gallant Baptie, a brave surgeon, who rode across to the donga amid a murderous fire, and did what he could for the injured men. Now and then a rush was made into the open, sometimes in the hope of firing another round, sometimes to bring a wounded comrade in from the pitiless pelt of the bullets. How fearful was that lead-storm may be gathered from the fact that one gunner was found with sixty-four wounds in his body. Several men dropped in these sorties, and the disheartened survivors settled down once more in the donga.

http://www.readprint.com/chapter-3731/Arthur-Conan-Doyle

http://www.readprint.com/work-631/Arthur-Conan-Doyle

It has been widely stated that comparing the number of casualties per round of ammmunition fired had decreased from the First to the Second World War, Korean War, on to the Vietnam War. That would tend to indicate that small arms effectiveness - regardless of why - has decreased, and not the opposite, in major conflicts.

 

[chieftain]

Just to bring the studies up to date, if you look at typical performance of troops during the ACR tests of the 1980s, even the addition of optical sights did not appreciably increase the hit probability of soldiers shooting in simulated combat conditions.

This may be true of Army troops. It is not true of Marines. The Corps has always put a premium on the ability of the line troops to shoot at 'long' ranges with the service rifle. Those long ranges are now 500yards with the M16A2.

Now, when you put a scope on that rifle, a rifleman, who has been trained to hit with Iron sights at 500yards, will get better hits with that scope and at longer ranges IF NEEDED. Is CQB skills still needed, of course, most of the fighting will still be at relative close range. But I want our boy's winning those longer fights too, when they happen.

Remember, a rifleman that trains to shoot and hit at 500yds finds the 300yd and closer stuff a relative piece of cake. Now give him a scoped rifle (ACOG) and even better things happen. A trained rifleman can and will make better shots with the superior capabilities of a quality combat optic. Just Like they did in Fallujah.

It has been widely stated that comparing the number of casualties per round of ammmunition fired had decreased from the First to the Second World War, Korean War, on to the Vietnam War. That would tend to indicate that small arms effectiveness - regardless of why - has decreased, and not the opposite, in major conflicts.

Directly in proportion of the use of fully Automatic service weapons in the hands of all troops.

I believe it only proves the general ineffectiveness of full automatic fire in the standard service rifle. It was precisely why the Corps demanded getting rid of full Auto capability. The burst capability was a compromise.

Personally, I do not believe the standard service rifle needs to have full auto capability.

But back to range capability.

Marine history, including Vietnam is replete with reports, stories and 'incidents' of line troops engaging at distances considered 'extended' and hitting the enemy. Sometimes because supporting arms were not available, sometimes because supporting arms were not allowed to be used.

I can see the restrictions to the use of supporting arms becoming more and more prevalent as the fighting evolves into lower intensity combat than we have already seen.

That would place the need 'more' often on rifle accuracy including at longer ranges too. In the foreseeable future it will not replace the preponderance of firefights at closer range. But it will be required more often. The tool needs to be kept in the infantryman's tool box.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Roswell 1847]

Best 5.56 AP round they've been able to come up with.

Cartridge, 5.56mm, Armor Piercing (AP), M995


The cartridge is used by the M249 machine gun and the M16A2/A3/A4 and M4-series weapons. Procurement is intended for use against current and future light armored targets. The M995 offers the capability to defeat these targets at ranges 2 to 3 times that of currently available 5.56mm ammunition.

The cartridge consists of a projectile and a propelling charge contained in a brass cartridge case to which the projectile is secured. The projectile consists of a dense metal penetrator (tungsten carbide), which is enclosed by a standard gilding metal jacket. An aluminum cup sits at the rear of the projectile for the purpose of properly locating the penetrator within the projectile. The cartridge utilizes a conventional brass case and double base propellant. A standard rifle cartridge primer is used in the case to initiate the propelling charge.

The penetrator is similar to components used in other small caliber cartridges currently used by the US Army, but tungsten has better penetration capabilities than the other materials and is the design feature, which enhances the armor piercing capability of the cartridge.

This cartridge is identified by black bullet tip identification paint.

Type Classification: Std - 29 Mar 96
Unit cost: $1.44 (Fiscal Year 2005).

The penetration that can be achieved with a 5.56mm round depends on the range to the target and the type of material being fired against. The M16A2/A3/A4, M4, and M249 achieve greater penetration than the older M16A1, but only at longer ranges. At close range, the weapons perform the same.

Single 5.56mm rounds are not effective against structural materials (as opposed to partitions) when fired at close range - the closer the range, the less the penetration. The 5.56mm round is affected more by close ranges than the 7.62mm or .50 rounds.

5.56 mm Maximum Penetration. For the 5.56mm round, maximum penetration occurs at 200 meters. At ranges less then 25 meters, penetration is greatly reduced. At 10 meters, penetration by the 5.56mm round is poor due to the tremendous stress placed on this high-speed round, which causes it to yaw upon striking a target. Stress causes the projectile to break up, and the resulting fragments are often too small to penetrate.


Reduced Penetration. Even with reduced penetration at short ranges, interior walls made of thin wood paneling, sheetrock, or plaster are no protection against 5.56mm ball ammunition rounds. Common office furniture, such as desks and chairs, cannot stop these rounds, but a layer of books 18 to 24 inches (457 to 610 mm) thick can.

Not much use against third world building construction now is it, And thats the best they can field for 5.56 weapons.


The closer you are the less likely the round will hold together well enough to defeat the enemy's cover.

 

[chieftain]

Not much use against third world building construction now is it, And thats the best they can field for 5.56 weapons.

The closer you are the less likely the round will hold together well enough to defeat the enemy's cover.

I wonder whether it would work against body armor that way too?

The old 55gr round we used in Vietnam was okay. In side of 125yds +/- it worked on NVA very well. At least as well as the 7.62 NATO ball.

40+ years of trying to get it right. And still the cartridge is in question.

And some folks think this is a good service round.

Why? Probably that river in Egypt.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Evil Monkey]

So Cheiftain and roswell, what are your arguments?

That we should drop the 5.56mm and go back to the big ol' 7.62x51mm?

Yeah, then we get into a REAL war where logistics are spread too thin and 5.56mm becomes Holy again.

I suspect if we were fighting a REAL, ACTUAL war and not just policing, that house in Roswells story would've just been demolished. No soldier would have gone in there if they knew the target.

I guess it's a battle of concepts. I personally hate the 308 as a general purpose round. I like the idea of a controllable weapon that can shoot a burst of ammo controllably to increase hit probabilities. I believe that was the reason the Germans had created a high cyclic weapon like the MG42. They knew the enemy was only seen briefly so a high volume of ammo was needed to increase casualties. That's the same reason we got into that whole SPIW, ACR thing.

The Russians have also been experimenting with AEK-971, AK-107/108/109, and AN-94 assault rifles. The AEK rifles and AK-10789 rifles use a counterbalance to counteract the movement of the bolt carrier and also have an efficient muzzle break to reduce the recoil down to nothing. Because of that, these rifles have a much higher cyclic rate too. The AN-94 uses a very complex system which allows it to shoot 2 5.45mm rounds at 1800rpm. The system is designed so that the second shot is not affected by the firsts recoil, resulting in 2 rounds traveling very close to each other with very little dispersion. The AN-94 I believe is used by elite forces.

Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_kiUdiUyds&feature=related

At the 2:40 mark, You can see the 7.62x39mm version of the AEK. Maybe this is something we both seek for urban combat. The rounds' capability to punch through barriers (it's not a 7.62x54R but oh well) and it's supposedly controllable on full auto bursts. The version they fire is the 5.45mm version.
At 4:35 they have a brief picture of both weapons.
At 5:03 they shoot the 5.45mm AEK again.(looks more controllable than even an M16...)

At 8:07 the AN-94 is shown and fired until the end of the video.

Maybe it's not a 7.62x51mm RIFLE you want, but a 7.62x51mm SAW. That would make more sense for that type of environment. Or just a change in tactics...

 

[Roswell 1847]

I suspect if we were fighting a REAL, ACTUAL war and not just policing

I think I'll let your own words sink in for awhile.


PS

At 8:07 the AN-94

You do realize that the AN-94 is one of the most complex and fragile autoloaders ever devised.
The whole system depends on an aircraft cable which rolls over a pulley.
You can't even reach the trigger when the stock is folded.

Ever wonder why no one is actually using these?

Plus the Soviet 5.45 is even less effective against hardened targets than the 5.56.

 

[RP88]

its kind of hard to get modern statistics because technology has advanced extremely since the last big wars, or period where there were multiple wars to draw information from. Also, the modern war doesnt exactly ever call for engagement in a flat environment with lots of space between you and your target (thats what mobile power like bombers, etc. are the true enforcers nowadays).

The way I see it, anything past 100 meters nowadays is pretty much reserved for DMs/snipers. That range of engagement shrinks when you consider that every war since Vietnam occurred in densely populated, built up, or vegetated areas where you have massive concrete structure or dense trees and growth obscurring and restricting not only your vision, but the area of combat in general. I'd say nowadays being a marine and getting engaged at from 200 meters instead of being shot at within talking distance would sound like a prayer to God to me.

Also, I would say that it doesnt matter which round you choose (762 or 5.56) because both have their plus sides when you think close-range/modern combat/etc. One reliably fragments at that distance and causes horrible wounds, while the other's shorter range but consistent larger amount of impact force and power were pretty much designed for this kind of combat. Then, both have their downsides, like how one has less power and how the other offers a slower rate of fire. It's like they'll never get it right.

/all in matter of my opinion

 

[Evil Monkey]

You do realize that the AN-94 is one of the most complex and fragile autoloaders ever devised.
The whole system depends on an aircraft cable which rolls over a pulley.
You can't even reach the trigger when the stock is folded.

Ever wonder why no one is actually using these?

We are not talking about the mechanism. We are talking about the concept. By that account, you have nothing to say about the AN-94's concept/doctrine/reason/philosophy/etc. And as I've said, some elite russian forces are apparently using it.

Plus the Soviet 5.45 is even less effective against hardened targets than the 5.56.

Which "hard targets"? If you're talking about structural elements then of course, the 5.56mm and 5.45mm are both too light in some instances. However, if you're talking about steel armor, neither of them are weak. Russian 7N22 5.45x39mm and RS-101 5.56x45mm can easily penetrate 10mm BMP armor at 100-200 meters.

 

[GunTech]

This may be true of Army troops. It is not true of Marines. The Corps has always put a premium on the ability of the line troops to shoot at 'long' ranges with the service rifle. Those long ranges are now 500yards with the M16A2.

The key words in the post were 'simulated combat conditions', not shooting on the qualification range. In the case of the ACR tests, this involved shooting at moving targets, while being distracted by whistles, artillery simulators, etc. Soldiers had to fire from hasty positions after doing short bouts of exercise.

I seriously doubt Marines would have done any better.

 

[GunTech]

One thing people neglect when noting the large number of rounds fired in modern war compared to earlier this century. Thanks the the use of suppressive fire, casualty rates for friendlies using fire suppression have gone way down.

I'll gladly trade more ammo used for fewer casualties.

 

[chieftain]

So Cheiftain and roswell, what are your arguments?

That we should drop the 5.56mm and go back to the big ol' 7.62x51mm?

Where did I say that. I did say that in combat I have seen the differences of rifles shooting 7.62 NATO vs. 5.56NATO.

Yeah, then we get into a REAL war where logistics are spread too thin and 5.56mm becomes Holy again.

Actually the size of the war isn’t the issue. It is the intensity of the combat. That intensity varies in all wars too. Some battles are more intense than others. Our adaptation of the 5.56 was a compromise. I believe the compromise we made was a bit to much on the light side. I believe one of the new 6.5 or 6.8 cartridges, would probably be closer to the compromise balance that is needed in an ideal assault rifle.

I suspect if we were fighting a REAL, ACTUAL war and not just policing, that house in Roswells story would've just been demolished. No soldier would have gone in there if they knew the target.

I think we are fighting a real and actual war. It is a relatively low intensity war. I do remember that old saw though. “If you are in the only firefight in the whole war, that is World War IV to you.”

I can’t speak for Roswell. I can say the only MOUT combat I was ever involved with was assisting in the retaking of Hue. We were not allowed to destroy any of the houses, with supporting arms at all in the beginning. If we would have run into a similar problem, we would have blown the floor with a LAW , grenade, or C4 and tossed a bunch of grenades, or possibly some C4 down the hole. Then follow up with an assault. We didn’t have the kool tactics used today. Like the Conga line. We were rather rude, crude, lewd, and socially unacceptable.

the modern war doesnt exactly ever call for engagement in a flat environment with lots of space between you and your target (thats what mobile power like bombers, etc. are the true enforcers nowadays).

I don’t think they got that memo in Afghanistan.

We are not talking about the mechanism. We are talking about the concept. By that account, you have nothing to say about the AN-94's concept/doctrine/reason/philosophy/etc. And as I've said, some elite russian forces are apparently using it.

There is no evidence of Spetsnaz using those weapons in Chechnya. The last place Russian forces were in combat.

This Quote was found

The Groza (Thunderstorm) is manufactured by Tula Sporting and Hunting Guns Central Research and Design Bureau, Russia. Uses a bullpup configuration 75% common parts with the AKS-74U. Available in 7.62mm S, 5.45mm B and 5.56mm N, and 9x39 mm. The 9mm version was introduced by Russia's Interior Ministry (MVD) in April 1994 for service in Chechnya. The 7.62mm model was taken into service by the Russian Airborne forces (including Spetsnaz) and combat engineers in 1998 (available in small qualities in T2K).

The key words in the post were 'simulated combat conditions', not shooting on the qualification range. In the case of the ACR tests, this involved shooting at moving targets, while being distracted by whistles, artillery simulators, etc. Soldiers had to fire from hasty positions after doing short bouts of exercise.

I seriously doubt Marines would have done any better.

The Marines already have done better, in actual combat, not simulated. As stated in the earlier answer. The Corps line infantry had already proven it’s capability of aimed accurate fire in the recent conflict in Fallujah. Done deal.

I believe if the Army placed as much emphasis on aimed accurate fire, their soldiers would be just as capable. They don’t.

This is not just in the present, this difference of the emphasis on combat rifle accuracy has lasted since the existence of the two services. It is not new. Call it a difference of philosophy.

One thing people neglect when noting the large number of rounds fired in modern war compared to earlier this century. Thanks the the use of suppressive fire, casualty rates for friendlies using fire suppression have gone way down.

I disagree. I believe suppressive fire began with the first repeating rifle. In our case the Krag Jorgenson.

I do not believe unaimed fire does much of any good at all. If you are engaging undisciplined troops, it may have some effect. If you engaging trained, disciplined troops it is all but worthless. It is a myth. I believe much of the myth was a rationalization for the M16’s full auto capability.

I'll gladly trade more ammo used for fewer casualties.

Always. That is what supporting arms is for. If you want to lower your casualties in a firefight. Hit the enemy with your rifle fire. Dead and wounded enemies do not inflict many casualties on friendly forces.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Roswell 1847]

Quote:
I suspect if we were fighting a REAL, ACTUAL war and not just policing, that house in Roswells story would've just been demolished. No soldier would have gone in there if they knew the target.

The reason those Marines made five assaults while waiting twelve hours for Tank backup was because wounded or dead Marines were still trapped in the house.
In the end the Tank blew the House with One Marine still inside, he's believed to have bled out while his buddies were putting their butts on the line trying to reach him through a hail of powerful 7.62X54 automatic weapons fire that their 5.56 couldn't suppress for lack of penetrating power.
The Tank took so long to get there because this incident began during a major assault and the Armor was committed to other objectives miles away.

You can't always expect the Armor and Air Cover to be there to take up your slack.

IN WW2 the BAR was almost always supplied with AP rounds not for use against armor but for chewing through the substantial walls and barricades of dug in snipers and machinegunners in European cities, A job it did quite well.
Log barricades were also easy meat for .30/06 AP and to a lesser extent Nam era 7.62X51 from the M60 and early on the M14.

The 5.56 in the M4 format is nothing more than a jacked up Submachnegun and even less effective in some instances due to the reduced penetration at close range. Its only saving grace is its better than average accuracy.
The short M4 barrel reduces muzzle velocity to such an extent that its true effective range is a great deal less than that of the M16 which in turn loses killing power rapidly at longer ranges.

Wounding the enemy rather than killing him sounds good on paper, but in real life a wounded enemy will still trigger a Claymore or cover his retreating comrades as long as he can pull a trigger.
He won't be a burden to his comrades because they know that carrying him back with them is unlikely to save him if they have no medical supplies. Since they are sworn to Martyr themselves dying in battle is better than surviving with wounds. Only key personnel are carried away for medical treatment if the conditions are dire for them at the time. For every zarqawi smuggled into Iran on to get the best care a hundred more bleed out in the boonies and are left where they fell.

Kill em quick and kill em dead because if they do escape and survive someday they'll get their hands on a gun and start the crap all over again if they have to have a grandson pull them around in cart and prop them up to shoot.

 

[theken206]

"I suspect if we were fighting a REAL, ACTUAL war and not just policing,"

tell that to the douchebags trying to shoot and blow up my good friend over there with the 1st cav'. they didnt get the circular memo as it turns out.

tell that to any poor SOB thats on the other end of him, his SAW and the prototype ACOG mounted on it if they havent gotten a free magic carpet ride courtesy of some 5.56 and a pack of newports{the REAL fuel of infantryman lol}

 

[elmerfudd]

I believe I've seen M855 go through a tree trunk about 10-12 inches thick. I'll try to recover the video.

That's actually not very impressive. I've personally seen 7.62x54R go through a Douglas fir about 2.5' in diameter at a distance of 175 yards. We had a couple of 5.56 rifles there that day as well and there really was no comparison at all in their penetrating power.

The exit holes in the back of that big old tree made me rethink both cover and what constitutes a good backstop.

 

[TimboKhan]

I can't offer any direction towards a study, but I did take the time to find a paper written for the Command and General Staff College titled "Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization

Here is the link: http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/House/House.asp

Anyway, reading the article and looking at some of the maps of various WWI battles, it becomes evident to me where these stats come from. I just scanned the report (although, since I to am an actual historian, I think I am going to go back and read the whole thing!), but it seems clear to me that long distance engagements just didn't make sense. Keep in mind that these are snap conclusions from only scanning the report, but here is what I gleaned:

1. Crossing large expanses of open ground exposed troops to ever improving artillery fire. Thats bad.

2. Trucks allowed for relatively large forces to be shuttled quickly to points for "surprise" attacks. Logically, it follows that they were moved fairly close to the point of attack, much as troops today are.

3. A realization that the attrition was a flawed tactic.

4. Increased use of machinegun fire.

5. Tanks.

Again, I am just sort of shooting from the hip here, but it appears to me that in all of these cases (save attrition), long distance engagements just didn't make sense. Why start shooting far away, when you can draw your enemy into your artillery net and then murder them with small arms fire? Why park a truck a mile away when you can park it 500 yards away and assault from there? Why potshot at troops a long distance away when the machineguns can rake them? In other words, the rifle was just not the best long-range weapon, and so it became a short range weapon, which is still is, more or less, today.

It's a good question, Tim, and hopefully I don't come across as an idiot here, but please keep in mind that I scanned a long report in about 5 minutes and that it's 4:00 in the morning right now! Anyway, I had more to say, but I think I better just read the whole report before I say it to keep from looking dumber than I think I already do!

 

[LAK]

Chieftain

Now, when you put a scope on that rifle, a rifleman, who has been trained to hit with Iron sights at 500yards, will get better hits with that scope and at longer ranges IF NEEDED. Is CQB skills still needed, of course, most of the fighting will still be at relative close range. But I want our boy's winning those longer fights too, when they happen.

Remember, a rifleman that trains to shoot and hit at 500yds finds the 300yd and closer stuff a relative piece of cake. Now give him a scoped rifle (ACOG) and even better things happen. A trained rifleman can and will make better shots with the superior capabilities of a quality combat optic

I would agree with this.

GunTech

One thing people neglect when noting the large number of rounds fired in modern war compared to earlier this century. Thanks the the use of suppressive fire, casualty rates for friendlies using fire suppression have gone way down.

I'll gladly trade more ammo used for fewer casualties.

Suppressive fire is as old as artillery and the repeating rifle. The machinegun made it available to individual small units isolated or operating in isolation from other troops.

Fewer casualties is more likely due to the nature of the conflicts - socalled limited war - and the more dominant and effective use and types of heavy weapons. Not just bigger and more powerful; the napalm bomb and the cluster bomb are two examples of air delivery that will do to whole swaths of entrenched troops that regular bombs and artillery shells would not.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Interesting subject. The Japanese rifleman who shot my dad in the chest at Iwo Jima, did so from probably less than 25 yards away. That was at Cushman's Pocket. If you look at the accompanying pictures of the terrain, you can see why it was so close. The ETO might have given plenty of opportunity for longer range firefights out to 200-300 yards, but I would be willing to bet that, with the exception of rifle fire along beaches, the vast majority of those that took place in the Pacific island campaigns probably occurred at extremely close ranges for a rifle.

 

[RP88]

I don’t think they got that memo in Afghanistan.

I dont see how the war in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan differs. Both have vast ranges of desert landscape between urban areas, save for both countries ranges of mountains. As said before, you have more mobile and superior machine forces like tanks, bombers, etc. taking out basically anything in this area, and better means of traversing or transporting troops.

Maybe if we were in WWII where 500 yards would be fought over for days or weeks between trenchlines or defense lines, long-range rifle fire would be much more common and useful, even though it would still not be responsible for many casaulties until both forces got much closer to each other (ex: trench raids in WWI). However, nowadays, even between smaller, lesser-armed forces, it would only take about a few minutes to cover that much ground and draw ground forces to much closer and deadlier ranges. Thats the thing, and its already been said: why shoot from afar when you'll be in their face in a few short minutes?

Now, dont get me wrong here. I'm not saying rifles should only be effective out to 200 yards or anything. A better effective range usually means better accuracy, which is great regardless of range. However, I'm still saying that--assuming you're with a standard issue rifle with whatever nice optics--you'll seldom if ever need or will have to shoot at anything at such a range. Ever. You'll have choppers, tanks, bombers, snipers, heavy machine guns, and RPG units for that.