02-22-2015, 01:17 AM
SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:[SIZE="3"]Indeed, Trooper,
AN ARMY OUTGUNNED: Physics Demands A New Basic Combat Weapon, By Joseph P. Avery, Ph.D (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryRevi...art004.pdf).
[/SIZE]
Guys:
I read it. Nothing I haven't heard before. Most dating back to the late 1970's. I bet that guys here who were in when the M-16 was introduced have heard the same things as well.
I would take a M-4 with an M-68 over a 50's technology AK 47 firing 40's technology ammo under any condition.
Again, this author compares match grade ammo to ball ammo. Simply ignoring the cost and how many tens of thousands of rounds of it will be blown through shot up E-Sils at ten yards every year doing CQM. Or simply shot into a berm to 'get rid of it' at the end of a FY.
Have heard all the arguments about more marksmanship training, without a thought about such things as range availability, training cycles, or the numerous other things even an Infantryman is expected to know and practice.
One thing you won't get out of these guys is a realistic set of conditions and a rational standard of performance for each condition.
The second thing they won't contend with is something called range availability, training time, and Class V requirements.
I have a solution for the Rifleman though. C Mags of straight tracer and a M-4 with automatic capability and a dot sight. Problem solved at less expense and ranges would really be fun for a change. Especially putting out the fires. We used to call this the 'dirty environment' and it used to be seen as realistic training!
LR55