# Re-enter the Battle Rifle?



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2010)

The New York Times reporter CJ Chivers has been writing a series of articles regarding Taliban and Afghan government forces marksmanship.  Not much of it is suprising, given the statistics on casualties as a result of enemy rifle fire, but what is interesting is that Taliban fighters are using WW1 and WW2 era Lee Enfields (some of which were Canadian produced at Long Branch) with more success at supressing and harassing Allied forces than fire from AKs with their shorter effective range.

The articles can be viewed here:

Afghan Marksmen — Forget the Fables
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/

The Weakness of Taliban Marksmanship
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/

Afghan Marksmanship: Pointing, Not Aiming
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/afghan-marksmanship-pointing-not-aiming/

A Firsthand Look at Firefights in Marja
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-at-firefights-in-marja/#more-17989


----------



## PanaEng (26 Apr 2010)

Just as interesting as the articles are the comments sections. 

cheers,
Frank


----------



## 40below (26 Apr 2010)

We ought to send some of our Rangers over there to show the Taliban exactly how accurate Lee Enfields can be fired at distance.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2010)

Contemplating a return of the battle rifle should also prompt thinking about a corresponding change in organizations and tactics, like the ones discussed here.


----------



## KevinB (14 May 2010)

Someone sad Battle Rifle?


Shortly after 9/11 elements operating in Afghanistan noted that the M4A1 even with our (KAC) MRE FF RAS, and S&B Short Dot was not up to the task of going from the CQB fight to the edge of the villages or out in the mountains, and while the 18" Mk12 Mod0 and Mod1 are capable in the accuracy department, that they where neither very handy for CQB, nor would 5.56mm, even with then newly adopted 77gr AA53 round (Mk262) capable of barrier penetration at range.  Larry Vickers did a segment on Tactical Arms to air this year where he talks about why the M4 was picked over the MP-5 for CQB, as to somewhat paraphrase him “ you sometimes need to step out of the house and make a 100m or 200m shot”, he then relates to the 7.62mm SR-25 EM Carbine, and the 7.62 Battle Rifles, “well in Afghanistan, sometime you need to step out or go up on a building an make a 400-600m shot, and 5.56mm is not ideal for that”.



We had built pre-ban SR-25K 16" guns, and some other 7.62 carbines, however they where not really designed for the “M4 type” roles that where being envisioned.



 We came up with the SR-25 14.5" Battle Rifle,







 With the idea is that it was very similar in appearance to the M4's and not going to draw undue attention, as well unlike the majority of systems, it used the same manual of Arms as the M4/M16, so soldier who have years on the M16FOW, don't have issues relearning drills, especially valuable under stress.



 7.62mm is more optimized in longer than 14.5” barrels and really wants at least a 16" barrel, and a lot of concerns about the reliability of the 14.5" gun were being given, so shortly after the 16" SR-25 Battle Rifle was developed, which was really just a longer barrel.









 We had never envisioned a 7.62mm gun being run like an M4, and especially with a suppressor neither the 14.5 nor the 16" gun where at the reliability level that was desired.





Especially suppressed, I ran the 16" SR-25BR at classes, and demos. 










 Accuracy even with the chromed barrel was always good, sub-MOA and a fair amount under the 1/2MOA mark.

It is a good gun, but in high suppressed round counts it got dirty and finicky.







Near the first quarter of '09 we started work on a PIP of the 16" gun, as well as the 20” M110. 

 High-speed video, lots of rounds, more high-speed video, changes to the gas system, and more rounds and video, a lot more stuff and changes to the bolt carrier, the recoil system resulted in the SR-25 EM Carbine.



At the same time, the optical industry was busy working on a 1.1-8x scope to give the user the ability to take advantage of the added capabilities of the 7.62 round.















 What we ended up with was in our opinion the finest 16" 7.62mm gas gun on the planet.



 We shot several EM’s for over 1,000 rds fully suppressed with no additional lube, with no stoppages

We have done extensive lifecycle work on the guns, endurance testing etc.



 We wanted to build the best gun we could, so if someone on a mountain top in Afghanistan or wherever else needed to have a gun that would go and go and go, it would.

  If he has to dump it in snow to cool it down, it would go and go and go.



With well over 50,000 rounds thru it, including a day where Mr. Knight and I stood in a puddle of muddy water splashing the gun to cool, we feel we are there.



Unlike our previous carbines, which we showed at SHOT (I have a pic somewhere of me holding the 14.5" gun at SHOT'04 when I was still in the Canadian Army) and never really publicly released for sale, we wanted a short 7.62 like this this gun to be our Flagship.



 So its here, and available.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 May 2010)

Kevin, thanks for the pics and info.

Mate, you've got the best civvy job ever!

You should be in contact with the DMO Lads from Melbourne (if you hav'nt already  ;D)

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## brihard (14 May 2010)

Kevin-

Looks and sounds like one hell of a rifle. Well done!


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 May 2010)

Kevin, 

Interesting stuff there!

Any thoughts on the merits of a bullpup in a battle rifle or 'hybrid' i.e. 6.5mm cartridge?

Get to keep a full length barrel, but have the handiness of a carbine for CQB type work, and with a larger sized calibre you can cover a full spectrum of engagement ranges.

Kel-Tec RFB comes to mind, although just saying the word 'Kel-Tec' makes me feel _unwashed_, and the forward ejection mechanism looks like it could be problematic.

Although, at the end of the day we can argue until we're blue in the face about the merits of a calibre change, but given the cost (well into the billions of dollars for the US DOD, and Canada wouldn't budge unless a new NATO STANAG on ammo came out), it's *un*likely that we'll see 5.56 get replaced by 7.62 solely, or both being replaced by 6.5.  About the only thing that would/could cause a major change from the current small arms ammunition is a move to something truly revolutionary like caseless ammo where significant weight savings could be had.


*edited for clarity...I'd meant to say unlikely, rather than likely*


----------



## DexOlesa (14 May 2010)

Wow. Sounds like a great weapon.


----------



## SeanNewman (14 May 2010)

All,

It's covered in other threads on this board, but there is a strong push to get a designated marksman at the section level in order to increase reliable lethal effects that would use something similar to a battle rifle.

However, for the masses, the "pros" of 5.56mm ammunition still matter today as much as they did 40 years ago.  Less weight = more ammo, and less recoil = more accurate shots on rapid fire.

You will not see the return of a full-scale 7.62 rifle for everyone because it is not the best way to go.  What you may see is one per section but that soldier will be a rifleman first and also capable of section attacks, room clearing, etc; he will not be a sniper-light.

Infidel,

I have a lot of respect for the capabilities of the SR25, but the SR25 is only one of many rifles that are being considered (AR10, M110, HK417, among many many others).  I am not knocking the SR25, just saying that there are many factors involved, not least of which being the sheer volume of purchase would almost assuredly require assembly in Canada.

Your points about different ranges are all valid (50 vs 300 vs 600m), but one all-inclusive-wonder-weapon at platoon level is unachievable the same way one wonder-vehicle is that would have a huge gun, carry infantry, fast, tracked, wheeled, good on gas, nimble, mine resistant, and agile.  At some point you need a tank, LAV, and logistics truck which is what platoon weapons will continue to look like metaphorically.  They will have overlapping capabilities and specialties.

Matt,

The intermediate calibre is not going to happen any time soon in general infantry use.  Not 6.5, 6.8, 7.0, or any other "best of both worlds" ammo type.  Yes it would be nice to theoretically only use one ammunition in a platoon, but now you have soldiers being less accurate on rapid rate, and machine guns with less power (yes I am aware that at a very specific range band a Grendel round out-joules a 7.62).

It's all moot because we have a NATO standard and nobody is going to move before Uncle Sam does.

As for completely different generations of ammo on future horizons, yes some people are working on it but the C7A2 roll out just completed so don't expect anything to change next year.


----------



## KevinB (14 May 2010)

FYI 

1) We also make the M110 SASS
2) Armalite cannot touch us in a performance based specification 
3) Hk417 - Hk just killed the program, I was somewhere, doing something with someone, and Hk called to tell the user group.

We are not hyping the SR-25 EMC for general issue (outside certain communities) but it does merit a look for a Section/Squad DM.  The M110 SASS type guns are generally wasted at Squad/Pl level, plus it still looks like a Sniper Rifle (unless you have an all C7A2 force)


----------



## vonGarvin (14 May 2010)

Question here for Infidel:
Does your weapon have the ability to allow the shooter to do a "battle sight" type aim from say 300 to 600 m?  You know, "top dot" for this range, middle "dot" for that range, and bottom "dot" for the farthest range?  (EG: 300, 450, 600 m?)

I'm not sure what the ballistics are for it out to 600m.


----------



## SeanNewman (14 May 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Petamocto lecturing Infidel-6 on Small Arms...WTF??  :



Not lecturing anyone on anything.

I am the Officer in Charge of Small Arms at the Infantry School though, which makes us two peers having a discussion.  My life at work is guns, too...as is the entire cell I work with including Bisley and Queen's Medal-winning MWOs and several small arms instructors who do it day in and day out as well.  Also, we are not affiliated / biased in any way  

Infidel,

Ack, I just listed the first few off the top of my head without putting a lot a thought into it.  The intent was just to state that the SR25 is on the list of many.

As for what the rifle looks like, I can't go into too much info on here on how much importance I placed on the suggested criteria (how it's pro-rated vs other categories), but it's on the list for common-sense purposes to not make him an obvious target.  It doesn't have to look exactly like a C7 + C79, but generally similar (ie, no giant "hey look at me" scope).

Techno,

I am personally a big fan of multiple-range sites as opposed to physically altering the site (like the range dial on the C79) which takes IMO too much time engaging fleeting targets.  However, there is one person who is dead-set against them, who happens to have the ear of someone important.


----------



## KevinB (15 May 2010)

Petamocto/Technoviking 
Horus H27 reticle...
  Give you ranges and windage in the reticle, plus a BDC turret when you have more time, for more precision.

Failing that an ACOG has the range stadia lines both for bullet drop and the range stadia is a range finder in the way that the lines are aprox 18" shoulder at those ranges, so for the typical Infantryman it is 'plug and play'

I agree with PetawawaOromocto in that the C79 sights are nice on a KD range to dial in, but not really effective or efficient on the battlefield.


----------



## SeanNewman (15 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ...I agree with PetawawaOromocto in...



Uh oh, my code name has been decoded!   

I have the new British sharpshooter PAM and they seem to have no problem with a multiple-range ret.


----------



## KevinB (16 May 2010)

The Brits put the ACOG on the LMT L129A1, I had a chance to shoot it when Karl Lewis was over visiting us last year.


----------



## SeanNewman (17 May 2010)

I did not really want to go into the specific optics (day or night) of what  they used since my copy is stamped "Restricted" and out of good faith for our friends I just left it at "multiple range...".

They also mount a relatively heavy night sight ahead which may result in giant left bicep syndrome.

We're looking into a one-optic solution but that's a whole other 10 threads.


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2010)

Clip On In-Line Night Vision is the way to go on a STATIC weapon system, however its foolish to use on a system while moving, hence the clip on.

 Even small clip ons can greatly increase accuracy while in position over the PEQ's and Head Mounts, however the PEQ and Head Mount system clobber weapon mounted when moving or for keeping SA.

I cannot get into 'Advanced' Weapon sights, as I am bound by NDA's, however I still think we are not at the point that the ACOG type sights are obsolete.

 I vastly prefer the ACOG over the ELCAN, I won the 2004 NSCC 300m with a TA31 and sent it to the Inf School for a little while to help out some friends  

 That said for a DM type optic, I beleive that something like the Leupold 1.1-8x scope with the Horus reticle is a better setup, as the 8x with reticle give you target detection and discrimination at longer ranges than the 3.5x,4x or 5.5x ACOG's, and the 1.1x can be used with the Red Dot - like an Aimpoint, if your in closer terrain.


The CF is dead set on the C79A2 and it makes the Baby Jesus cry.

 I'd prefer a real optical trial, as well as a trial for a CCO rather than cheating the EO into the system, IOR buys are fine for immediate needs, but it gets a little stale when 9 years later there is no trial.
  Of course there was no trial to select the C8SFW w/o RAS as the C8FTBH/C8A3...
Hard to justify - just my 0.02


----------



## SeanNewman (17 May 2010)

All valid points.  Keep in mind that the "Battle Rifle for everyone" argument is a non-starter for me, so this thread for my purposes is entirely about the sharpshooter (which I why I agree with you on the two-up optics being better for a static system).

I am not the final say in the matter of what site or rifle gets picked, but I have one of a handful of influential positions that can write up desired requirements for such systems.

We had quite a bit of expertise at last winter's Small Arms Working Group and sharpshooter was the topic discussed more than any other.  As I mentioned a few posts ago, there is one other influential person who is pretty fixated on single post aiming sites that require external mods to change ranges, but all I could do was present the other side.

It is very easy to spot those who live their life in a range environment vs those with a combat focus.  I will be the first to admit that I haven't been in 100 TICs, but I am smart enough to know that everything we do should be combat driven and not range driven.  

Some people are quire content to recommend a 5.56 sharpshooter with a site that requires 15 seconds worth of dialing in to hit something at 600m vs a 7.62 + multiple range site that would require 2 seconds to hit the same fleeting target.

But as I said your points are valid because this guy is still a soldier-first, not a semi-sniper.  We have to give him a weapon that he can still do section attacks and room clearing with.


----------



## Dissident (17 May 2010)

Tag.

The idea of of a 16"-18" 7.62 platform with a 1.1-8x optic on top really appeals to me. Even for non infantry types.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 May 2010)

Wot? No bay'net lug?  ;D

We've got it backwards I'm afraid: this should be our main weapon in the section. Keep a couple of guys armed with 5.56mm to lead the 'room clearing', delicate shorter range shooting stuff IMHO....


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2010)

The Battle Rifle for all is a non-starter.

 However the CF is ahead of a lot of other armies as it is doing its own "Arms Room Concept" albiet somewhat differently and not really intentionally.

5.56mm is here to stay - and its a good round, however it does lack something that 7.62NATO does better at the section/squad and Pl levels.

Kevin's Arms Room Concept for the CF
5.56mm with collapsible stock
 11.5" Upper with CCO (Close Combat Optic)
 16" upper with GP Optic (General Purpose - ACOG)
 20" upper with SP Optic (Semi-Precision - think Leupold 1.1-8x)

7.62mm with collapsible stock (see Magpul ACS or VLTOR EMOD, as the ones with the standard M4 collapsible the latch suck for prone shooting off a bipod or rest)
 16" upper with SP Optic
 20" upper with Precision Optic (S&B 3-12/4-16 or Leupold new 3-18 not displayed yet)

5.56mm LMG
 16" barrel x2
 20" barrel x2
7.62mm LMG
 16" barrel x1
 20" barrel x2

12gauge Shotgun 14" breaching

40mm Stand Alone Grenade Launcher - with FreeFloat Weapon mounting ability

Pistol 9mm

The 16" 5.56mm would be common to all, with varying amounts of other items be altered by unit and mission and deployment.


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2010)

What?  Task-tailored sections and platoons, changing loadout to best meet their objectives?

But where is the uniformity?  The mind-numbing duplication and repetition?


Where are the painted rocks, dammit?????


----------



## QORvanweert (17 May 2010)

Thank you for those links. I greatly enjoyed reading through the articles and they inspired me to go double check the cleanliness of my own rifle!


----------



## SeanNewman (17 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ... "Arms Room Concept" ...



A lot of your specs are good but I am personally against short-barreled MGs for any purpose because they are IMO going down a path to extinction.

Originally conceived as better mobility in confined spaces, CQB MGs were almost immediately neutralized by CQB doctrine that focuses on knowing where every round is going.  The only time they fire auto on the Urban Ops course is a "stance check" to make sure you're squared off properly.

Personally, I remain a huge proponent of the longest-barreled 5.56mm weapons possible because of the aforementioned Fackler Velocity that I treat as gospel.  Once that round gets below 875m/sec my lethality goes down, so why would I give myself a barrel that is skimming that velocity to begin with?

The role of an MG was at its inception and continues to be a weapon of mass destruction over a large kill zone, and in my assessment a shorter barrel MG is counter-productive because it makes the gunner less accurate and less lethal.  

Everything else on your wish list is moving along nicely.  At the Ex Bayonet infantry conference last week the M203's deficiencies were noted at the Gen+ rank level.


----------



## Loachman (17 May 2010)

Of the two of you, Kevin has had a far greater personal stake in what is more lethal or less lethal than you ever will.

His personal experience trumps your Pams and Fackler velocities and gospels by a wide margin as far as I'm concerned.

Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (a Soviet term that has unfortunately become a tired cliche in the Western media). Small arms are not.


----------



## HItorMiss (17 May 2010)

I honestly only have one thing to add to this conversation and that is 6.8mm

Probably in my mind the best of both worlds.


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2010)

A lot of rounds have been optimized for Short Barrels
 The 62gr SOST round and the 70gr Black-Hills "Brown-Tip" are the notable 5.56mm rounds, and they are JAG approved for issue, with the USMC being the most notabel non  SOF adopters of the SOST round in 5.56mm

 7.62mm the 130gr SOST round and the 155gr Hornady 8087C "TSWG" round.

I am generally of the mind to carry the longest stick you can, however very few operations occur outside 'complex terrain' and even dismounting a helo or vehicle, the shorter barrel MG's fill a role.

The newer rounds turn the previous velocity thresholds on their head...


 6.8 is dead - it was a Steve Holland/5th SFG ideal, and outside very limited usage it has all but died in the SOF circles, it has some uses, but unless NATO goes head over heels for it (and they are not) SOF specific calibers are okay for some things (niche items and even handguns) but for general issue small arms, the comonality with supporting forces goes along way.


----------



## HItorMiss (17 May 2010)

You are right I6 I was not looking at comminality. It is though well documented that we require a change if not in caliber then as you said in grain for maximum penetration and lethality. 

6.8 may be great for the NATO SOF community but the average rifleman is likely not needing this round.


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2010)

I'm not big on 6.8 for SOF, as historically SOF specific rounds are never availble when you really need.
  I saw some 5th Gp 6.8 guns collecting dust, since the team could not guarantee any supporting elements could/would have ammo to replenish them.

 If your element say has G22's in .40S&W, but Hk416's in 5.56mm, worst case is the secondary weapon cannot get bombed up if your stuck in situ and a conventional unit needs to roll to your aid.

 If your running 6.8, and you go winchester, well your screwed with running captured Ak's or weapons from downed conventional guys who where bailing you out.

 If your running some 16" 7.62mm goodness, well worst case is when you run out of a specific ammo, you can use de-linked ammo from the beltfeds.

My view of SOF specific stuff is more geared towards 'other' operations.


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

Are 'red dot' style laser indicators also a a thing of the past?  Seemed to be a very hot topic a few years back but havent heard much new about it...


----------



## KevinB (18 May 2010)

What do you mean by Red-Dot style laser indicators?
 The PEQ-2A/CLAD and PAC-4C/LAD are IR lasers (well okay the PEQ's are IR laser/Illuminators as they also have a IR flood).

 The newer PEQ's (15,16,18 etc) have vis lasers as well, which have their uses especially for intimidation or tgt indications for non NV people


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Originally conceived as better mobility in confined spaces, CQB MGs were almost immediately neutralized by CQB doctrine that focuses on knowing where every round is going.  The only time they fire auto on the Urban Ops course is a "stance check" to make sure you're squared off properly.



Who says that doctrine has any value - Fallujah is a good example of CQB; infact, the agricultrual areas of Kandahar are also good examples.  It seems silly to build doctrine off the assumption that cowering civilians will be in every battlefield - they're pretty good at getting out of dodge.

I've seen pretty good stuff pointing out that our CQB doctrine is junk, but that's for another thread.


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> What do you mean by Red-Dot style laser indicators?
> The PEQ-2A/CLAD and PAC-4C/LAD are IR lasers (well okay the PEQ's are IR laser/Illuminators as they also have a IR flood).
> 
> The newer PEQ's (15,16,18 etc) have vis lasers as well, which have their uses especially for intimidation or tgt indications for non NV people



Im thinking more of any sighting device that produces a visible targeting aid (i.e. a red dot); in your experience are they still proven to be useful in field conditions?


----------



## KevinB (18 May 2010)

As in Eotech or Aimpoint Dots or the Dot in a Short Dot or Leupold CQBSS, yes totally in a shorter range engagement.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2010)

6.8 and 6.5 are interesting as thought experiments, but I doubt the performance gains are so earth shattering that entire logistics infrastructures will be overturned to issue them. The EM-2 used a .280 "ideal" round, but the Americans had about a zillion Winchester .308 already on hand for their NATO allies, so no EM-2 for Tommy.

I also recall reading (although I no longer remember the source) that a 6mm (or something in that size range) provided superior performance in a LMG compared to 5.56, but the advantages of logistics trumped ballistic considerations.

We will see performance improved 5.56 for a very long time to come, until something far better comes along (either earth-shattering ballistic performance, or radically cheaper with equal performance). Based on current understanding of physics and technology, I suspect the eventual replacement won't even be a "rifle" the way we understand it. 

As for the end user, I would appreciate something a bit shorter, a rugged sight (certainly anything with a better sight mount than the C-79), and the ability to pick up a sight picture quickly like a reflex sight. (Maybe a contradictory set of requirements, but that's the nature of the beast). A section or platoon sharpshooter should not attract attention, so I am with Kevin on a weapon that resembles the service rifle (which limits the pool of possible choices somewhat). 

Really, so many other factors outside of ballistics or optics are in play that much of this discussion really is theoretical.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Really, so many other factors outside of ballistics or optics are in play that much of this discussion really is theoretical.



Especially where 5.56mm is backed up by 25mm, and a 60mm MOR and a couple of GMPGs in the Wpns Det, of course....


----------



## vonGarvin (21 May 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Especially where 5.56mm is backed up by 25mm, and a 60mm MOR and  a couple of GMPGs in the Wpns Det, of course....


There is no need for Mortars in the Contemporary Operating Environment.  Please, carry on.


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The newer rounds turn the previous velocity thresholds on their head...



Ack, but at a cost of more recoil which may be more acceptable in a sniper role but not the best thing for a sharpshooter who may have to fire rapid rate.

Don't get the wrong idea here, I still agree with 99% of what you're saying  ;D


----------



## NavyShooter (21 May 2010)

Reproduced from the CTV.CA website...all normal provisions apply....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100521/us-rifles-afghanistan-100521/20100521?hub=World

It seemed to be....related....to the current discussion.

I've not entered an opinion in here because I'm "just a range guy."  My input is....well....perhaps not as operationally experienced or oriented as that of others here whom I will defer to as local experts.

NS




> The Associated Press
> 
> Date: Friday May. 21, 2010 6:27 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (21 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Ack, but at a cost of more recoil which may be more acceptable in a sniper role but not the best thing for a sharpshooter who may have to fire rapid rate.
> 
> Don't get the wrong idea here, I still agree with 99% of what you're saying  ;D



Okay I see your thoughts.
  
 The 5.56mm improced loads do not increase recoil, in fact the 70gr Black-Hilsl loaded Brown-Tip has slightly less than M855, and decreased cyclic rate as well.

 Some of the 7.62mm rounds, like the Hornady SuperPerformance are inded increased recoil.
I took an excerpt from a poster on M4Carbine.net with two of our guns using this.

A 16" SR25 EMC with a good modern load like the Hornady 168gr TAP Amax will get you to 800 yards very consistently - provided you know what you're doing (mostly reading wind). You won't be winning any F-Class matches with a 16" gun, but you can ring steel at 800 all day long.

I have both the 16" EMC and the 20" EMR. The Hornady load above sees about a 90fps boost out of the longer barrel. More MV is always good, but 90fps is, IMHO, not worth buying another rifle for...

The real reason I got the EMR is to experiment with Hornady's new 178gr Superformance round. The Superformance is very hard to shoot out of a 16" gun -- recoil is very sharp and it does not group all that well.

This round is HOT: 2684fps out of my 20" tube at 900' ASL, 70degF -- an easy 1000 yard load. Some have experienced popped primers, even using a bolt gun. It remains to be determined if this is a pressure problem or an ammo manufacturing problem. I have not experienced any popped primers over 50 rounds, but I will continue to treat this round as experimental in my EMR until I can gather more data.  

 The Hornady 155gr 8087C is not like the 178 SuperPerformance, and I really don't know a lot about its longer range performance, just its in close (300m and in) work, and the terminal performance in Ballistic Gell.

The biggest problem when you step out of M118LR is it is the only ammo in 7.62mm that has both a specified chamber and port pressure, to which the guns have been set (at least our SR-25's).
  When you play with either of those, you can dramtically affect the bolt carrier velocity, and that effect reliability as the extractor and ejector are desgined to operate withing a certain parameter.

 Now those parameters are farily generous, as we can use several different ammunition both suppressed and unsuppressed.  But we do have over 100,000 rds of M118LR that have been fired on US Army acceptance and endurance guns that are analysed to the nth degree and fired in a controlled environment, and everything is inspected and tested at given periods.

 several of our Foreign customers use their own ammuntions, and we have delivered a lot of systems without complaints of function.

 But my concerns with the "Super Performance" ammunition is that it may result in decreased reliability, and increased system wear.  If an entity was to specific the use of that ammuntion, we would test it very thoroughly.


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> But my concerns with the "Super Performance" ammunition is that it may result in decreased reliability, and increased system wear.  If an entity was to specific the use of that ammuntion, we would test it very thoroughly.



Great reply and lots learned for me, thank you.

That last part is going to raise some eyebrows though because as you know the DM/Sharpshooter is going to be firing a lot of rounds because he's a soldier first so for our purposes we'd prefer the AK mentality than Match mentality if given the choice.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 May 2010)

Pet

Explain to me why you would prefer lots of rounds and maybe some hit vice small use of rounds much greater hits. It seems to me I would use my LMG/GPMGs to pin while my DM sighted and made the kill instead of just pumping lots of rounds and hoping. 

I would think the DM should be using match grade for his DM rifle and of course he would have his normal rifle with regular ball ammo for those close in nasty fire fights.


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

BM,

My comments were in context to a sniper, not a soldier.

I have said many times exactly what you just did in the first part my push to get the Sharpshooter program started: It is better to have less rounds fired that actually kill people than it is to have more rounds that keep their heads down (if that).

Your second statement is wrong though in your assumption that he will have two primary weapons.  His sharpshooter rifle is his one and only primary weapon.  He is not a mini-sniper-light with a bolt-action sniper rifle, he will be a soldier who does section attacks and CQB with his rifle just like everyone else, but also be able to hit farther out when required.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 May 2010)

Alright I am tracking.

So you are thinking like an AR10 for the DM,which can fill both roles. Though in a Mech senario you could have (and it was done on 3-06) a sniper rifle per Platoon in the DMs LAV. When the long shot was needed out popped the long barrel Boom and off they went.


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

BM,

The deficiency has been noted by just about every deployed BG, but using different methods.  The core problem is that there is no precision weapon past the doctrinal 400m of a C7 (which in my opinion is actually a lot less in realistic [non-range] conditions).  If you saw a bad guy at 600m you could only hit him with a mortar, machinegun, or predator which is unacceptabl

Some have bought off the shelf weapons like the AR10, some have upgraded some C7s or gone with C7CTs, and others have had snipers attached to the companies to shadow them.

All of these are piecemeal solutions and in some cases counter-productive.  Having a sniper trained up to that qualification and then under-employing him as a sharpshooter is a waste of a resource because he is not using 90% of his skill set.  It is much better to take a soldier who scores well on his PWTs, give him some enhanced training (think two-week course) and a better rifle, and off he goes.

The OrBat hasn't changed, and everything else is still the same, but now the section has more capability and firepower than it did before.

This is nothing new at all for the armies of the world.  The US (both Army and USMC using differnt tools) and UK have already bought on, and Russia has been doing it for several decades.

As for the specific weapon that will be chosen, that is not my call to make.  My arcs are to draft the Infantry School's recommendations for what a certain system should be able to do, and then I'm drafting up the actual course itself.  

As per Infidel 6's posts above, KAC does make some really great systems that have won some significant comparison tests in the past, but that doesn't automatically mean that's what we'll take.  As always, procurement is an evil medusa with many heads and they all have their own motivations for choosing something.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> It is much better to take a soldier who scores well on his PWTs, give him some enhanced training (think two-week course) and a better rifle, and off he goes.
> 
> The OrBat hasn't changed, and everything else is still the same, but now the section has more capability and firepower than it did before.



This is exactualy the approach done by TF 3-06 BG it was not a sniper in the Platoon it was a Platoon member with the highest PWT score who had access to the Old C3.


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> ...had access to the Old C3.



Conceptually yes (best conventional shooter), but in practice no (reference C3).

Nothing at all wrong with the Parker Hale in its intended role, but it would be impossible for a bolt-action rifle to meet the requirements of a sharpshooter rifle in this context.

It will either be a 5.56 or 7.62 semi-auto rifle that looks generally similar to a C7/AR10, that much I can promise you.

The C3 is exactly what I mean with one of those band-aid solutions to the problem to meet the deficiency of reliably hitting something 300-600 (and killing it vice scaring it).  Yes it can do that, but it is not the best solution to have one guy carrying two rifles when there are plenty of good weapons available now that can do both.

What you will see in the next couple years is a very different PWT system that will better identify long-range shooters.


----------



## Dissident (21 May 2010)

Petamocto, if the sharpshooter program comes out, who will get it? Combat arms only, or will field MPs/close support trades get a chance at it too?


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> As always, procurement is an evil medusa with many heads and they all have their own motivations for choosing something.



Procurement is actually quite simple.  Define the requirements.  Be able to justify the requirements.  Release requirements to industry and see what they can offer.

It's when people try to game the system that things go wrong and get delayed.

For something of relatively small dollar value (and a few hundred rifles would fall into that category) it's relatively painless.  Major Crown Projects are where the additional complexities come in.


That being said, there is supposed to be a small arms replacement project at some point to look at what comes next after the C7; that may trip up any effort to introduce a new small arms system.  But that's internal DND bureaucracy, not procurement.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 May 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Petamocto, if the sharpshooter program comes out, who will get it? Combat arms only, or will field MPs/close support trades get a chance at it too?



Honestly I would think only combat arms and likely like the Sniper course only Infantry. I believe it would comes down to things like other trades do not do the current PWT3 unless you are attached to an Cbt Arms unit and really having your Sig op or attached MP as a DM would really just be waste of time as they already have a specialized role to fill.

Sure it would be jammy and cool and yes the vast majority of jammy cool things goes to Cbt Arms but that's just the way it goes sometimes.


----------



## Dissident (21 May 2010)

BM, I get that and I mostly agree.

Talking to the guys (MP buddies) that went on TF1-08 I really get the impression that a DM would have been usefull enough that it would have warranted its presence. They did have infantry attached or were attached to infantry types, so the capability could have been provided through them as necessary. 

I am thinking it would have been useful on foot patrols along with the ANP or out at the PSS instead of letting loose with the C6/.50 into a village.


----------



## Greymatters (21 May 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Sure it would be jammy and cool and yes the vast majority of jammy cool things goes to Cbt Arms but that's just the way it goes sometimes.



Thats the 'perk' side of being in combat arms...


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> I am thinking it would have been useful...instead of letting loose with the C6/.50 into a village.



And that is reason number one.  We have a lot of weapons with area effects but not precision effects (the infantry definition of precision is killing one person, not like the sniper definition of precision which more pinpoint).

DAPaterson,

Agreed that the theory of procurement is simple, but the practice is quite different.  There are sorts of examples of the 100% solution already existing, but we settle for the 50% solution built in Canada (we are not alone in this, UK has had even worse luck with it).

Dissident,

Infantry is obviously the prime user group but that by no means excludes it from other trades who may also operate dismounted.  There is a case to be made for every platoon-sized element carrying at least one as a pers weapon but that choice will be made above me.  Some in LFDTS are pushing for Army complete, but I will keep everyone informed as things are finalized.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 May 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Reproduced from the CTV.CA website...all normal provisions apply....
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100521/us-rifles-afghanistan-100521/20100521?hub=World
> 
> ...



I found this quote from the above link "_These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London._' " Is this true? Are the Taliban still using older weapons like the Lee-Enfield and Mausers. I'm also curious about the statement that the Muj who defeated the Russians were also armed with Lee-Enfields and Mausers. Any pictures I saw of Afghan insurgents showed them armed with AK-47s. So my question to you guys who have been over there, "Are these statements true?"


----------



## SeanNewman (21 May 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> "Are these statements true?"



The answer is more "yes" than "no", because they are not at all standardized like we are.

I won't get into a detailed "Enemy Situation" here, but on extremely general terms there are "enemy" we face over there with dozens of different levels of motivation and capabilities.  While it is more complex than the Tier 1 (full-time insurgent fighter) and Tier 2 (part time farmer/fighter) scenario, that is a good place to start.

With a broad brush, yes the well-organized insurgents (and ANA for that matter) typically use the stereotypical AK + RPG combo, but vintage firearms like those you listed above are actually more common overall in the country.  While it is prohibited to openly carry firearms in Kandahar (lest Thor's bolts of lighting [Hellfires] strike you from above), a typical Afghan family compound will still have a few simple rifles for personal protection, just like farmers pretty much anywhere in the world.  Now take that Tier 2 example above when the guy normally farms but gets paid a couple hundred bucks to join in a few ambushes, and then you start to see more of a mix.


----------



## Illegio (22 May 2010)

Petamocto,

Do you see a common rifle being used to meet the demands of a designated marksman rifle and a semi-automatic sniper weapon? Perhaps different sights, ala the S&Bs on the SASW to keep commonality with the C-14/15s vice something different for the DMRs?


----------



## SeanNewman (22 May 2010)

Illegio,

You are obviously a person "in the know" to be asking such a question  :nod:, and the answer is very much so "yes", both my peer OIC Sniper and myself want to see a shared platform for their planned Short-Range rifle and our Sharpshooter rifle because there is a lot of overlap in what is being asked for.

I am not a sniper nor am I in charge of anything sniper related, but I do know their intent in the Cell is to narrow it down to short (SASS), medium (T-wolf) and long (McM).

The matter of the optic is also valid as the Sharpshooter must look generally the same as the rest of the troops, which means no massive uuber scope on his rifle where as the snipers can do what they want.

Everyone understands the importance of commonality where it makes sense though, and if 7.62 is chosen for the sharpshooter platform then it would take someone truly retarded to make a decision to have two different 7.62 semi-auto rifles in the system (keep in mind that AR10s are not really part of the system like C3s are).  

There are more than enough rifles in this family to choose from and there is bound to be one that could meet the needs of both a SR-SASS (accurate) and a Sharpshooter (lighter, durable, etc).


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2010)

I thought I had posted a well thoughout commmentary while stuck in Japan, but alas the internet monster seems to have eaten it.

I think the three group Sniper rifle Arms Room (I'm back to that  ) is the ideal method.

 The USMC recently adopted our (KAC) M110 SASS as their REPR (Rapid Engagement Precision Rifle), and will be joining the US Army on the M24E Contract (Multi-Caliber Bolt gun system .308 for trg, and .300WM/.338LM for Operations) and they have the SASR (Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle - Barrett M82A1) similar to how the US Army has the M107 (Barrett).

 I think the CF made much better choices on the .50 (The Barrett is a great anti-material rifle, but its NOT a sniper rifle).  And I think the C3A1 as a Sniper Trainer - not that it was planned that way intitially - will work better than beating up the Primary gun in trg with a different barrel option).


If your going to a 7.62mm SharpShooter System (or Marksman Rifle System as the 2002 thought) which I think is the way to go at the Section/Squad level, then having the same system with just an optical change seems to me to the be the logical road, as your SharpShooter (which I will no doubt cause all sorts of problems when it gets abreviated to SS, so I will use DM) really only needs to learn more longer range shooting skills to use the same scope as the SASS equipped Sniper, and it merges the supply chain for both systems (which having to do spare parts lists for customers I cringe when different systems that are not fully interchangeable are involved).  However there are areas where the SASS and DM may diverge, and a somewhat different system is needed)

However I find it interesting that the USMC (which is probably the closest mindset and MTO&E wise to the CF of the US military entities) chose the Crane (USNSWC Crane, the SOF ground weapons people) built Mk12 Mod1 (18" barrel 5.56mm and Suppressor) over a 7.62mm system.  However they like the US Army are currently investigating a 16" 7.62mm DM type system  ;D


I would suggest the DM role is just for Infantry within the Land Element.

Swerving horribly out of my lane
Down in the US (I would usually say down here, but being in Singapore right now that just don't make sense) the Military Police, both US Army (SRT) and USAF Security Forces (SF in accronym only...) have DM elements for both CONUS LE work and OCONUS deployment.   
 Having said that, I don't see any role for the CF MP's to have this, as there are NO roles that they would need it, especially since the one role they had a claim (EP/PSD whatever they call it now) is now ALL-ARMS (and really if you need a Counter-Sniper capability for a Embassy/whatever your best actually getting a real CF Inf/SOF sniper for that role.
Armored Recce and Engineer elements could most likely make a case for the DM, but given the plug and play TF system, is another role that could be filled by a 031 (or is it officially 00010 now?) attached to them.

The only real argument for non 031 employment is by the NBP teams, and since they are stuck in the 80's with their MP-5's I don't see 7.62mm employment going anywhere, even though the 140gr Black-Hills RRLP is made for that sort of niche.
 (I have 30min before my alarm tells me to wake up here so I am probably not the most coherant at this point so ignore or disagree with me, and I won't be too offended)


----------



## SeanNewman (25 May 2010)

I6,

As usual, almost entirely agreed with a few exceptions.

1.  Yes the C3 has ended up as a quasi trg rifle, but their Cell is trying to get rid of a training rifle.  Your point is valid about not using out your primary shooters, but that can be mitigated somewhat with rotation and only sending your best ones overseas when real lives are on the line.  Also, if their short-range rifle and the Sharpshooter rifle (agreed the SS short form will never be used) end up being the same platform then the procurement will be massive so potentially they would get the first ones and pass them on to the unwashed conventional infantry masses.  All that to say, I am not OIC Sniper but I know his intent and it's not to have a trg rifle.

2.  As discussed, calibre is not my call.  More to follow on our proposed September shoots (I'll write you at work).

3.  Any non-infantry use is out of my lanes as well, really.  While the Infantry School is the COE for SA in the CF, even being the OIC I do not feel confident enough in my knowledge of other trades (MPs, etc) to say whether or not they would have any use for it.  The employment concept I see is the best shot per section simply having that rifle as his pers weapon the same way another guy has a C9 or a C7+M203.  No OrBat changes, and the weapon is treated just like the C9 in the section where if the gunner goes down someone would be expected to swap to bring that firepower on the objective.  For that reason, the closer that it is mechanically to a C7 the better so someone only qualified C7 could pick it up and rock it.  

That brings up a bit of a different note though that we realized when manning the section, and we're pretty much at the point where almost nobody but the commanders have just a C7 anymore because of the C9s, M203s, and now this.  Unless we drop one of the M203s because of the CASWs, every soldier is going to be a support weapon.


----------



## Infanteer (26 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> That brings up a bit of a different note though that we realized when manning the section, and we're pretty much at the point where almost nobody but the commanders have just a C7 anymore because of the C9s, M203s, and now this.  Unless we drop one of the M203s because of the CASWs, every soldier is going to be a support weapon.



As I was reading your post I was going to post a "WTF!" post in response, but you covered my concern here.

I apologize if I'm covering ground already tread here, but I'd rather (and I did) employ the DM weapon at the Pl-level.  The Rifle Pl Wpns Det is a perfect place to hold this capability.  Usually, I'd stick the DM with the GPMG team and I'd have the perfect precision/area effects passed 600.  I see no need to push this down to the section level - his fight is on "the next 100 meters", so to say - just my opinion.

As for dropping M203s for this/due to the CASW I fundamentally disagree.  The CASW has drawn a lot of ire due to it being put in a zero-sum game with the 60mm mortar, but I still have problems with the doctrine/employment of the system that seems to get overlooked due to a fancy bullet.  The M-203 is, aside from the NM-72, the perfect way (and only) for the Sect Comd to project HE in his "next 100 meter" fight.  The CASW has limited chances to assist a section due to a) sections and platoons often being away from company HQs and b) the CASW system being a very bulky and static system.

Bottom line, CASW is company level and M-203 is sect level.  DM Battle Rifle should be Pl level.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## KevinB (26 May 2010)

I like the idea of a DM team at Pl level.  However in dispersed operations - the Pl is not always together, and the SDM (Squad/Section DM) is a real asset, especially when not in a LAV centric entity.  

One of the reasons I like the 16" SDM 7.62mm is that the shooter can fight with the section, and yet still offer a needed precision range organic to it.  Especially in villages and the outlying areas, the SDM can controll ground and with a higher powered optical sight report back to his Section Cdr and Pl Cdr, and engage if required.

With an 8 man section
Sect Cdr - C8
#1 Rifleman - C8 M203

#2 Rifleman TL Gp 2 - C8
#1 LMG

#3 Rifleman - SDM
#4 Rifleman - C8

Sect 2I/C - C8 M203
#2 LMG 

Feel free to throw the M203's where you want.


Throw a PDM (Platoon DM) with the Pl Hq - and the Pl WO/ Pl Cdr can task him as needed.


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I was reading your post I was going to post a "WTF!" post in response, but you covered my concern here.



Had a massive reply to your post written from work and it wouldn't let me post.

To answer your placement question, there are two reasons:

1. There have been some very good simulations performed that suggest the farther forward you push the sharpshooters the better, and the more you have the better.

2. We have direction not to change the OrBats, which would happen by placing them in a weapons det.

When I first started researching it I also thought a platoon weapons det seemed like a good fit, but I have now seen enough to convert me.  Section level is best.

Also, do not be worried about someone in the section lugging around a 32 pound McMillan that they can't do anything with.  The sharpshooter will have a weapon light enough to be able to still be a fully functional soldier.  In fact, his left bicep will take less of a beating than the M203 gunner because his rifle will only weigh a bit more than a C7.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2010)

FYI...

Americans outgunned by Taleban’s AK47s

The future of the standard issue infantry rifle used by American troops in Afghanistan is under review amid concerns that it is the wrong weapon for the job.

With its light bullets the M4 rifle lacks sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights, leaving US troops outgunned by the Taleban and their AK47 Kalashnikovs and the old Russian SVD sniper rifle.

British Forces face the same dilemma but the Ministry of Defence said yesterday that there was no plan to review the SA80A2 rifle, which fires the same Nato 5.56mm calibre rounds as its US counterpart. “We constantly review all of our capabilities,” a spokesman said.

However, Britain has followed the US in investing in 400 new larger-calibre Sharpshooter rifles, which use a heavier 7.62mm round, and are effective at longer ranges. The weapon is expected to be deployed in Afghanistan, alongside the standard rifle, by the end of the month

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7135496.ece


----------



## KevinB (26 May 2010)

Anyone who thinks that an Ak-47 or Ak-74 outguns an M4 needs their head examined.

SVD/clones, PK MG's and heavier stuff sure it goes further.  

The biggest issue in this is more software related than hardware...


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

I understand your last sentence and I could not agree with your more, but your first comment surprises me a bit.

There is no question whatsoever that marksmanship training trumps velocity, joules, and tumble/fragment.  I would rather have a section worth of people who could accurately fire their rifles in combat than a battalion of soldiers who train a 4x4' screens once per year.

But all other things being equal I would take "all of the above" if given the option and the M4/C8 is far from ideal.  One of the key selling points of the original 5.56x45 NATO was the velocity so carbines have made me scratch my head ever since.  Yes, in confined spaces such as inside a vehicle or something, but in my opinion they should have never been allowed in the hands of an Infantry soldier.

I will keep quoting the Fackler Velocity until the cows come home, even though some other people on this board jump down my neck when I do because obviously they know more about terminal ballistics than the Letterman Institute of Military Trauma Research.

Even he points out what you and I agree with though, in that a well-placed pellet is more effective than a .50 cal round that misses.


----------



## Infanteer (26 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Anyone who thinks that an Ak-47 or Ak-74 outguns an M4 needs their head examined.



Agreed; especially in the hands of Afghan insurgents.  The biggest problem is when our guys try to match round counts and marksmanship goes out the window.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> 1. There have been some very good simulations performed that suggest the farther forward you push the sharpshooters the better, and the more you have the better.
> 
> 2. We have direction not to change the OrBats, which would happen by placing them in a weapons det.
> 
> When I first started researching it I also thought a platoon weapons det seemed like a good fit, but I have now seen enough to convert me.  Section level is best.





			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I like the idea of a DM team at Pl level.  However in dispersed operations - the Pl is not always together, and the SDM (Squad/Section DM) is a real asset, especially when not in a LAV centric entity.



I don't know what went into the simulations you saw, so I can't comment on their applicability - I'm basing my views off of operational experience employing the DM.  Dispersed operations for sections were quite the norm - treat a DM system like any support weapon; give the sections Atts of either the weapon or an element from the Weapons Det to beef it up; having 2x GPMGs allowed me to do this.  

I had two qualified DMs, one with my HQ and one in a Rifle Section.  Between myself and my section commander who had the DM, I as the Rifle Pl Comd had much more use and was better able to employ the DM.  I suppose it's on the level with giving a TOW det to a Pl Comd or a Coy OC - the OC would probably, in relation to the ground he deals with, put the thing to use better.  If I had to put DM as a Pl-asset or a Sect-asset, I'd opt for having it at Pl level.  If it was at Sect, I would just take the DM from one of my sections....

That being said, I'm never one to turn a capability down.  If the Infantry was willing to cough up the money for the guns and the time to train 4 riflemen per platoon, I'd be happy.  I would be a little leery about losing "pure" bayonets, but my DM employed his C8 fine with a decent rifle bag on his bag.  Infidel 6 probably has the best option - an all around battle rifle that can almost be dual-employed.

I don't think anything is required for TO&E amendment; 40-man Rifle Platoons gives you alot of room to play with.  I had my second weapons det guy in the DM spot.  He had no problems managing both roles and somebody could pick up the number 2 role if needed with a simple "hey, get over there".  

As for 8/10/12 man sections and where to stick the guy - I've given up on screwing around with numbers of the "ideal" section.  I never employed my Platoon as per the nice page in the PAM due to a variety of reasons.  I'm sold on the Aussie concept of the 4-man fire team and defining these teams by its primary function of maneuver or support.  A platoon consists of 10 of these and can use them however it sees fit; 5 8-man groups, 4 12-man groups, a few light groups and a heavy group, small groups with an additional group manning cars if mounted.  "Maneuver" fire teams (6 in a Pl) would have rifles and LMGs while "Support" fire teams (3 in a Pl) would have the heavies and the DMs.  Mix-and-match accordingly!

Basically, in the end it probably doesn't matter where it gets stuck - the Rifle Pl Comd will task tailor his organization as he needs it (as will the Sect Comd); I've found in theory (and in practice, when I started really getting tasked) the organizational principle above worked best.


----------



## Infanteer (26 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> But all other things being equal I would take "all of the above" if given the option and the M4/C8 is far from ideal.  One of the key selling points of the original 5.56x45 NATO was the velocity so carbines have made me scratch my head ever since.  Yes, in confined spaces such as inside a vehicle or something, but in my opinion they should have never been allowed in the hands of an Infantry soldier.



I don't think I'd agree with that - I'll stay away from ballistics as I only know the basics, but ballistics, in my opinion, plays a bit-part in battlefield effectiveness.  Maneuver, suppression and crew-served weapons are the deciding factor in a firefight, not the terminal velocity of a personal rifle, which plays a very minor role in killing guys.  As such, if I can reduce the bulk of the rifle (even by 4 inches) then I'd do so.

These two articles are worth reading concerning the topic.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/owen_RDS_feb2010.pdf

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

Infanteer,

The difference between a C7 and a C8 in terms of weight or maneuverability is almost completely negligible, and you know as much as I do that people want the C8 for the LCF more than anything else.  For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.

However, the difference in lethality between a C7 and C8 is massive for many reasons.  You are completely correct that a million other factors come into play when talking about a unit's overall lethality, but there is no justifiable reason at all to give up the extra accuracy and lethality of a C7.

In fact, it's almost tantamount to weapon malingering because you're intentionally giving yourself a less effective weapon for no justifiable reason.

As for the sharpshooter concept, I have access to all the Afghan PORs with how sharpshooters were employed.  I know what all the BGs did and I have the overall picture of what worked best for the capability as a whole and what the pros and cons are of each.  I am not discounting your experience at all, and your comments on the flexibility of employment as to how the commander sees fit are noted.

Again, you are not losing a pure bayonet, though.  He will be much closer to a standard C7 rifleman than a C9 gunner.  He is a soldier first, not a sniper-light.

You last comment about it not mattering where it will "get stuck" shows that I may not have been clear enough in the doctrinal changes.  The plan is to embed this at section level, not treat it as a support weapon like a C6 or 84.  If I wrote "support weapon" earlier then I apologize.  It wouldn't need to be task tailored and in fact everything I have seen suggest that pooling this asset is counter-productive to its effectiveness.  The farther forward guaranteed precision effects can be pushed out the better, and if they are pooled you're back to having a section that can't hit someone at 600m without killing everything around him.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

To amplify what Petamocto said, instead of one per platoon (in which case, it would make sense to centralise it at Pl HQ), the intent is to have three per platoon.  For flexibility, during a "lawfield corridor" section attack, that "marksman" is really just another rifleman.  In Panjwayi, it's one more tool in the section commander's toolbox that allows him to hit to 600m (which he can arguably already do), but with more accuracy and arguably, precision.

(Remember, accuracy is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of precision.  To illustrate, a C9 LMG may be accurate to 600m, but certainly not precise)


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You last comment about it not mattering where it will "get stuck" shows that I may not have been clear enough in the doctrinal changes.  The plan is to embed this at section level, not treat it as a support weapon like a C6 or 84.  If I wrote "support weapon" earlier then I apologize.  It wouldn't need to be task tailored and in fact everything I have seen suggest that pooling this asset is counter-productive to its effectiveness.  The farther forward guaranteed precision effects can be pushed out the better, and if they are pooled you're back to having a section that can't hit someone at 600m without killing everything around him.



Mission Command.


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Mission Command.



It's not about telling them how to suck eggs (which someone has already put a lot of time into) so much as it is giving them something that will make them far more effective because that's the best place to employ it.

Are we micro managing when we tell the sections to have C7s, M203s, and C9s?

Further, it's not a weapon like a mortar where 1 + 1 + 1 = greater than 3 concentration of force-wise.

If there were only one per platoon, then an argument could be made to put it as a weapons det asset but then it would not be a true sharpshooter (soldier first).

Keep in mind that nobody is telling a commander that he can't pool them if a situation arises that may in fact call for multiple sharpshooters (say for example an ambush/raid that is best started by killing three specific people at once).  All that is being said is that there is enough evidence to suggest the best baseline/default place for it to be located is with every section.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

The one point here I'd like to make is that the doctrinal model for the rifle section will (hopefully) see 3 x Marskmen per platoon, put down one per section.  That's the start state.  So, as stated, nothing stops the pl comd from saying in his orders something like this:
"1 section.  Grouping: detach OPCOM to 3 section 1 x Marksman.  Tasks: xxx
2 section.  Grouping: detach OPCOM to 3 section 1 x Marksman.  Tasks: xxx
3 section.  Grouping: attached OPCOM from 1 section, 1 x Marksman.  OPCOM from 2 section, 1 x Marksman.  Tasks: yyy"
So, the tools and the training will be pushed out with such numbers that there will be (hopefully) 3/platoon, 9/coy, 27/bn, etc and so forth.  All without increase in PYs.  (that keeps certain people happy, trust me)


----------



## rampage800 (27 May 2010)

Pet,

I do agree with the marksman being pushed down/created at the section level, I think this analogy though needs a little work;




> For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.



As warfare evolves maybe the weapons are getting lighter but the loads guys are carrying certainly aren't, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the average load a Canadian soldier carries now is 2-3x heavier than his counterpart in WW 2.  You can can make enough arguments for the C-7 vs the C-8, I think that the fact they carried heavier weapons before so it shouldn't bother us now is a bit flimsy in this context.

Anyhow, my 2 cents, hope this doesn't derail a pretty interesting thread.


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2010)

Two discussions here - type of rifle and doctrinal employment of DM:

1.  Battle Rifle



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Infanteer,
> 
> The difference between a C7 and a C8 in terms of weight or maneuverability is almost completely negligible, and you know as much as I do that people want the C8 for the LCF more than anything else.  For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.
> 
> However, the difference in lethality between a C7 and C8 is massive for many reasons.  You are completely correct that a million other factors come into play when talking about a unit's overall lethality, but there is no justifiable reason at all to give up the extra accuracy and lethality of a C7.



Small sure - but every little bit counts; same as getting rid of 3-5 mags helps shed a few pounds.  As the articles posted above point out, the "massive lethality" difference between a 16" rifle and a 20" rifle is almost meaningless on the battlefield.

So, in the end, I am just not concerned by the switch and I don't feel it's "weapon malingering", especially when the likelihood of effective use (25-100m) means that those ballistics are largely moot.

2.  Infantry DM



> As for the sharpshooter concept, I have access to all the Afghan PORs with how sharpshooters were employed.  I know what all the BGs did and I have the overall picture of what worked best for the capability as a whole and what the pros and cons are of each.  I am not discounting your experience at all, and your comments on the flexibility of employment as to how the commander sees fit are noted.
> 
> Again, you are not losing a pure bayonet, though.  He will be much closer to a standard C7 rifleman than a C9 gunner.  He is a soldier first, not a sniper-light.
> 
> You last comment about it not mattering where it will "get stuck" shows that I may not have been clear enough in the doctrinal changes.  The plan is to embed this at section level, not treat it as a support weapon like a C6 or 84.  If I wrote "support weapon" earlier then I apologize.  It wouldn't need to be task tailored and in fact everything I have seen suggest that pooling this asset is counter-productive to its effectiveness.  The farther forward guaranteed precision effects can be pushed out the better, and if they are pooled you're back to having a section that can't hit someone at 600m without killing everything around him.



Not disputing your data, just explaining my personal experience and again, I'm never one to sneeze at extra capabilities (where's my flamethrower?)  What you are proposing sounds very similar to the new Australian PAM where all 4 man infantry fire teams include a DM.

Where you're going with the proposal begs the question (which may have been touched upon earlier); if the plan is to push these out as a section capability, why don't we just aim to improve the marksmanship of the rifleman as a whole instead of a unique program and rifle that will be handed to 1/3 to 2/3s of the Riflemen in a platoon?


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

I would argue that you can have a much more effective C8 system than a C7.
  Accuracy is a non starter as the C8SFW (or whatever its being called outside CANSOF) is just as accurate to the level or capability as the C7.

 I will point out I won a 500m Deliberate one year in Ottawa using a Colt 14.5" M4A1, and the 300m and something else at 2004 NSCC with a 16" gun.

I'm a big Fackler guy - dont get me wrong - however there are much better rounds that do not rely on impact velocities as much for effect.
  70gr Black-Hills "Brown Tip" Optmized 5.56mm (Barnes Solid Copper TSX)
  77gr TOTM (Bonded OTM - part of the USMC initial Barrier Blind ammunition RFI from 2005)
  62gr SOST (hint google Trophy Bonded Bear Claw  :nod

 Even the 77gr Mk262 will upset in tissue at a lot lower velocities that M855/C77 ball due to the longer OAL, and the same OAL allows it to fragment at lower velocities due to the addition strain.

 All of these are JAG approved for Unrestricted Land Warfare use in the US of A.  AND as a bonus they have flash retardant in the propellants so your muzzle side signature is not as bad.  


That said -- there are areas where 7.62mm NATO trumps it -- shooting cars and other barriers.
 But CF C21 ball is not a great round for anti-personnel usage - as it does not really upset and fragment, in fact in gel it typically makes 5.56mm M855 look stellar.

If you look to a DM gun - you also need to look to ammo, if you want a more effective solution.


Yes I think the Section/Squad needs a 7.62mm DM system
  - and if using C21 ball for the interim gets it done, great.


BUT they CF needs to start looking into more effective ammuntions.

Secondly a real look (and this is an issue across NATO) at combat markmanship needs to be done.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...why don't we just aim to improve the marksmanship of the rifleman as a whole instead of a unique program and rifle that will be handed to 1/3 to 2/3s of the Riflemen in a platoon?


Part of this is the physical limitations of both the external and terminal ballistics of the 5.56mm round out to 600m.  In essence, it's a mix of technology and training to fill a 'gap': the precise fire out to 600m at the section level. There are a whole whack of issues, but in the end, the idea is to create this capability without losing others (eg: massed fire at point blank ranges to counter human wave attacks: just in case the Koreans make it this far! >)


----------



## Matt_Fisher (27 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The difference between a C7 and a C8 in terms of weight or maneuverability is almost completely negligible, and you know as much as I do that people want the C8 for the LCF more than anything else.  For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.



When you comment that the .303 SMLE or FN-FAL C1A1 was heavier than the C7 or C8, don't forget to take into consideration the weight of all the ancillary equipment that a rifleman is now required to carry that he didn't have to carry previously:
Optics, STANO, body armour, batteries, more water than was previously carried, etc.
When we're turning what was once a fast moving rabbit into a lumbering turtle, weight, even as seemingly marginal as it may be, all adds up.  At some point, something's got to give in terms of weight reduction, but the question is what to let go?


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

Secondly doing CQB with a 20" barrel is no fun.

 Its fine in a Plywood Sim room  with no furniture, but a small foreign house/hut with small crawlspaces and it is impossible.

I attended a CQB Instructor class with a LE dept down here, the SWAT guys and I had 11.5" barrels, some of the Mil and Patrol LE guys have 14.5" or 16" guns, and it was downright painful to see them trying to clean a small bathroom or crawlspaces on the local base (some abandoned houses).

 I'm not saying go out and give the Infantry C8CQB's but I do think the 16" is the best GP Compromise in a 5.56mm gun.


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  Battle Rifle...especially when the likelihood of effective use (25-100m) means that those ballistics are largely moot.
> 
> 2.  Infantry DM...why don't we just aim to improve the marksmanship of the rifleman...



On a side note, if using Canadian doctrine I think you'll find it easier to stop using DM now because the call has been made way above my level to not use it.  "Marksman" in the CF is not a job but a test score.  Someone who is a Marksman has scored 39/49 on a PWT3, that's all.  An Airforce Staff Officer can be a "Marksman".  Sharpshooter is what the CF is calling the actual job of what we're talking about.

1.  I would not get too fixated on the 25-100m range band if I were you, regardless of what you may hear during Urban Ops / Gunfighter camps.  Every theatre is different, and even if your entire tour was in a city it is extremely dangerous to focus your weapons only on the fight inside 100m lest our next enemy know how to shoot better than Afghan Insurgents and they kill us all from 400m stand off.  We must have both area and precision capabilities at all ranges.

2.  You're preaching to the converted here, but I can not do the impossible.  As much as I would love nothing more than the Army to put Infantry soldiers on a live training range every week to fire 1,000 rounds, but the ground truth is that will never happen.  An no offense, but every time someone has your opinion that the fight is only inside 100m, that many fewer rounds get fired from 300+ which further kills long-range accuracy.  The only thing I can influence is the PWT system which I am in the process of doing (other threads on the details, but generally PWT4 will be advanced shooting of all types, not just CQC).  Until you can convince the CDS to give rifle battalions JTF-levels of ammunition, it is up to the commanders (like yourself) to get your guys in the SAT as much as possible if money isn't there.  Yes it would be better to make everyone a better shot, but that COA is far more expensive than taking your best shooters and giving them a better rifle to make use of their skills.


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> BUT they CF needs to start looking into more effective ammuntions.



I6,

No debates from me, but all of your points about different types of ammo and what they can do in a 5.56 are moot because Canadian infantry soldiers use C77.  It's wonderful that someone else on the battlefield might be able to insert whatever ammo they like, but that is not the reality of the ammo you sign for.

Don't get me wrong, as I am sure you know our service ammunition is pretty much the Cadillac of the world's standard 5.56 load so I am more than content with it.  However, it is what it is, and until anything else comes along we have no choice but to put emphasis on 875m/sec.


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> On a side note, if using Canadian doctrine I think you'll find it easier to stop using DM now because the call has been made way above my level to not use it.  "Marksman" in the CF is not a job but a test score.  Someone who is a Marksman has scored 39/49 on a PWT3, that's all.  An Airforce Staff Officer can be a "Marksman".  Sharpshooter is what the CF is calling the actual job of what we're talking about.



Sharpshooter it is then.



> 1.  I would not get too fixated on the 25-100m range band if I were you, regardless of what you may hear during Urban Ops / Gunfighter camps.
> 
> 2.  An no offense, but every time someone has your opinion that the fight is only inside 100m, that many fewer rounds get fired from 300+ which further kills long-range accuracy.



You misunderstood my comment - I wasn't saying fights will be 25-100m, I'm saying those range bands are essentially the only ones where the individual rifle will have a real part to play on killing the enemy; anything beyond and, as the research of Owen and Storr alludes to, the individual rifle just isn't a real player.  To paraphrase LCol Storr "Rifles have been more accurate (and deadly) then the soldiers using them".  It is significant to note that they look at the Rifle as it functions in the system of the sect or pl as opposed to its individual range characteristics.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (27 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You misunderstood my comment - I wasn't saying fights will be 25-100m, I'm saying those range bands are essentially the only ones where the individual rifle will have a real part to play on killing the enemy; anything beyond and, as the research of Owen and Storr alludes to, the individual rifle just isn't a real player.  To paraphrase LCol Storr "Rifles have been more accurate (and deadly) then the soldiers using them".  It is significant to note that they look at the Rifle as it functions in the system of the sect or pl as opposed to its individual range characteristics.



So do you feel that we should at the section level move to replace C7s with PDWs equipped with grenade launchers, along with a Designated 'Sharpshooter' Rifle and a LMG or GPMG?


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...range bands are essentially the only ones where the individual rifle will have a real part to play on killing the enemy; anything beyond and, as the research of Owen and Storr alludes to, the individual rifle just isn't a real player...



Wow, that is really bizarre and I think completely out to lunch.  The only thing I can think of is that his comments are made in a defensive-type context where your rifles are really just meant as local protection for the support weapons like the AA an MGs that will do the majority of the killing and in that context I agree.

I know that Rommel speaks very highly of having more percentage of your forces in the firebase than the assault, but that's far from saying that smaller weapons are only within 100m.  Hmmmm.

I also don't know where he's coming from by saying that modern weapons have out-grown the soldiers because in the 1800s skilled soldiers were shooting things from several hundred metres away reliably.  I would argue the same point that you have above that it is more about soldiers' marksmanship getting worse than the rifles getting better, but as I have stated...sadly it's easier to give them a rifle that makes it easier for them to hit something at 600m than it is to train everyone up to that level.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Secondly doing CQB with a 20" barrel is no fun.



Not challenging that.  However, obviously one must ensure he is prepared to fight at all ranges and in my assessment that is not worth the trade off in giving up 100m+ of effective range (again, our variable that we can not easily change is ammo load).  If you can show Colt Canada how to produce a 12" barrel that fires a 5.56mm NATO round at 1,000mps I would sing your praises and convert to shorter barrels I promise  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Wow, that is really bizarre and I think completely out to lunch.  The only thing I can think of is that his comments are made in a defensive-type context where your rifles are really just meant as local protection for the support weapons like the AA an MGs that will do the majority of the killing and in that context I agree.



Read the article - the accuracy studies, and conclusions drawn from them, were taken from offensive scenarios.

This has a large part to play:



> _It appears that a soldier’s ability to hit a given target is typically reduced by a factor of ten or so when he is moved from a static rifle range to a field firing area where he has to select cover, move, shoot and so on.  It is reduced by a further factor of ten or so if there is an enemy firing back at him.  It is reduced by another factor of ten if the enemy has machine guns, or if he has tanks; and by a hundred if he has both.  We begin to see why many thousands of rounds can be fired, but very few actually hit._


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Infanteer,

I am beginning to see that we are finding more common ground than I originally thought we had, particularly because of the part you added at the bottom.

I believe a lot of that has to do with the way we conduct training and do our drills, all of which are going to change on my watch.  You not expect someone who trains in a classroom environment with drills meant for a conventional range to succeed in combat the same way a guy who trains how he fights will.  

I can not influence the CDS to give units billions of rounds, but what I can do (and am doing) is changing the C7/C8 handling drills and PWTs to be more combat-based.  On a PWT3 you will now be shooting from 400m as well as CQB, and you will have to shoot and remedy stoppages while wounded.  PWT4 will be even more advanced shooting of all types including improvised fire positions, etc.  That is the extent of what I can influence/change but I'm doing what I can.  No, it's not the same as simulating combat, but the end state is that the soldier will be many steps closer to real combat when he actually sees it.

I believe a large chunk of the problem will be fixed by changing PWT4 away from CQB-only ranges which is where the majority of deploying forces train.  How can we expect them to hit something from 400m if we only ever train them at 25m?  That decision is the result of both the OIC Urban Ops and myself coming to that consensus.  People need to be exposed to CQB earlier (PWT2) at a basic level, but not fixate on it later.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> On a PWT3 you will now be shooting from 400m as well as CQB, and *you will have to shoot and remedy stoppages while wounded*.



That's right.  The School of Foot is getting tougher.  We will shoot you (don't worry, it's just a .22) and then you will have to complete the PWT prior to receiving medical attention  >

(Sorry for the slight tangent)


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...We will shoot you...



Heck, I was just thinking the ARSO could say "Shot in left arm", but you're in charge of Standards and I like your way much better.

Perhaps it could be some sort of Mini RC-IED on the shooter's rifle that causes a stoppage and blows his hand up a little bit.


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Infanteer,
> 
> I am beginning to see that we are finding more common ground than I originally thought we had, particularly because of the part you added at the bottom.
> 
> I believe a lot of that has to do with the way we conduct training and do our drills, all of which are going to change on my watch.



Well that's what I meant from the start - why didn't you read my mind....

Anyways, drills are one angle to attack the problem highlighted above; however, there is some convincing arguments made that drills simply won't get a soldier over the "psychological hump" - I remember reading them somewhere at the Small Wars Journal; I'll see if I can dig them up.

Technology may help in the future, but I ain't holding my breath.  The biggest source of lethality for a section and, more significantly, a platoon is - in my opinion - the combined arms system and how it is organized, led and employed; it's really a 1+1+1 = more than 3 (as you put it).  Here's another good read from LCol Storr, who seems to be one of the few guys actually looking into the nuts and bolts of battle.

High Explosive: Shock Effect in Dismounted Combat

In the end what does this mean (to avoid a circular blah-fest).  It is how one combines precision fire, area fire, HE and indirect fire on a bad guy that determines how he best gets killed.  The Sharpshooter program definitely has a role to play in this - and if we have the ability to push this to 3-4 dudes per platoon, awesome.  When it comes to the more baseline Rifleman, there is nothing wrong with trying to improve ballistics and individual marksmanship (as I said, every little bit helps) but these are likely to be merely drops in the bucket compared to effectively dropping HE on a guy's head and, when resources and time are limited, we should make sure we're putting our eggs into the right basket.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Anyways, drills are one angle to attack the problem highlighted above; however, there is some convincing arguments made that drills simply won't get a soldier over the "psychological hump" - I remember reading them somewhere at the Small Wars Journal; I'll see if I can dig them up.


As I recall from reading some book way back when, the British Army did so with the "hump" of shooting other humans by having human-shaped targets on their ranges.  


			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> it's really a 1+1+1 = more than 3 (as you put it).



I believe the word you seek is synergy.

Glad to be of service.  "Techonology" may not help, but the *TECHNOVIKING* is always an asset!


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As I recall from reading some book way back when, the British Army did so with the "hump" of shooting other humans by having human-shaped targets on their ranges.
> I believe the word you seek is synergy.



No - I'm not referring to Grossman's junk theory about non-firers, I'm referring to the psychology of getting shot at which, as the study highlighted by Storr points out, reduces accuracy by exponential factors.  Technology to help would be some Power Armour.



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> So do you feel that we should at the section level move to replace C7s with PDWs equipped with grenade launchers, along with a Designated 'Sharpshooter' Rifle and a LMG or GPMG?


Although the case can be made along these lines and, if taken to extremes, recommendations of soldiers carrying a pistol and lots of crew-served weapon ammo, I wouldn't go out of my way to reduce the capability of the individual soldier *too* much.  Our rifle, for the time being, is fine - I'd prefer that money and time be dedicated to a new mortar, a good sharpshooter rifle, and the resources for good training for rifle platoons.

That being said, bullpups sure are nice to carry.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No - I'm not referring to Grossman's junk theory about non-firers, I'm referring to the psychology of getting shot at which, as the study highlighted by Storr points out, reduces accuracy by exponential factors.



Roger, understood.


----------



## GAP (27 May 2010)

In our patrols, way back when... ;D, after we were issued the M-16, we always had one or two DM's with M-14's (7.62), we all shared in the humping of 60mm mortar ammo, baseplate & tube, and also the LAWs, and, depending how long we were thinking we were going to be out, assist in carrying the extra ammo for the M-79. Then we had our own ammo, as much as we wanted to carry in bandoliers & mags.


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I believe the word you seek is synergy.



Nerd alert!  Stop being such an AOC-qualified Technogeek and using big words that troops don't use in their everyday conversations.

Next thing you know, you'll be putting things like "envisaged" and "nature abhors a vacuum" in Op Orders.  Just kidding, obviously nobody would _really_ do that.

Farva,

You are hinting at something that ties in with the bayonet thread as well, and it is something a lot of people don't like to talk about because it involves fighting spirit and admitting that we may not be the best at closing with and destroying the enemy.  What our trade used to be about was advancing to contact and eagerly awaiting the enemy to show himself so we could tear through him like crap through a goose.  However, as much as there have been valiant cases where that has happened, for a large part our doctrine is unintentionally changing to the infantry coming under contact and going firm as a firebase and calling in a Hellfire to do the assault.

Now I am not at all playing the part of the armchair quarterback saying "why don't troops go out there and put their lives on the line more" when they don't have to.  Not at all.  I understand the mindset of being in a convoy on the receiving end of multiple IEDs, and having an idea where the trigger man is.  It is in fact much easier to call C/S 0 and it's C/S 0's job to support the ground soldier however they can with destroying that threat, but I fear that baton is dangerously close to becoming the rule instead of the exception to hold firm and wait for HE of some sort to come in.

If I were to make a thesis out of this long post, it would probably go in depth about what a soldier is willing to do to fight for his own country versus someone else's while supporting a COIN in a host-nation environment, but I won't even open up that can.  At the end of the day I would hate to write the letter that read "Well actually we had all sorts of assets available that could have killed the man who ended up killing your son, but since I wanted the Infantry to be more aggressive I ordered them to close with...".

Food for thought, just observations not criticisms.

GAP,

How in the hell could a soldier be expected to fight with an M14?  You know how hard it is to fight with a bulky M16, don't you???


----------



## GAP (27 May 2010)

> How in the hell could a soldier be expected to fight with an M14?  You know how hard it is to fight with a bulky M16, don't you???



Sweet rifle....don't diss it!! Hated the M-16 for the longest time. With an M-14 when you hit somebody, he stayed hit.


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Sweet rifle....don't diss it!!



Trust me, I'm not.  Today you can have that stopping power* (marginally more, actually) with less pounds.

I am still for *most* people carrying 5.56 because the "pros" of even lighter and less recoil do count for a lot.  If you ever require rapid rate, 5.56 is going to get you far more rounds on target whether you're talking about an MG or a rifle than 7.62.

However just as it's best to mix a lot of 5.56 MGs with some 7.62 MGs, I argue it's the same with rifles.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

I will grant C77 is accurate ammo, and I will conceed Cadillac of 5.56mm as long as we can amend it to Cadillac of SS109 type ammo.

I don't beleive every soldier needs to shoot 1,000 rds a day, but I'd like to see more range time.

I really like what your doing with the PWT's -- although I'd recommend a taser for the arm, it will numb it to being useless for a point...
  ;D
Additionally I do think that SimFX stuff can be a great training tool if used properly.  5.56mm Sims leave a mark.

Unless the SAT rooms have C7A2's and C8SFW/FTHB's and can add PEQ/PAC's and lights - its really not teaching much, and they need to get rid of the retarded mag rest stoppage that the USMC insisted on for the FATS system (that became the SAT).

 I don't beleive the Canadian soldier has any problems mindsetwise killing the enemy.


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Post



1.  Agreed...I meant conventional "standard issue" ammo load.

2.  Noted on the Taser, as long as I can stipulate in the Annex "Kevin B accepts all potential risk associated with what we are about to do".

3.  I was just in contact with the range and trg safety people last week.  While the project isn't on warp drive, we are moving in the right direction with things like ShortStop and (name escapes me) the frange one that turns to powder.

4.  Noted on SATs.  I hate the mag rest stoppage too.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

Simmunition also has a Black CQT round, it is potentially lethal, but stops in 1/4" Plywood, and penetrates Cardboard -- it is good for using using opaque sheeting and cardboard for cover from view is not cover from fire...
 However it uses the Blue Sim 5.56mm bolts, and introduces a potentially lethal ammo, in a non lethal marking system, so some elements will have concern (and some rightly so).  However it does have a much smaller template than their standard CQT Frangible.
 *note standard frangible is really tough on barrels and suppressors.  It eats the throats out of guns and the baffles in cans at an outrageous rate.
  I've only tested about 1000 rounds of the Black Sim rounds, but recoil, sound are much decreased, and reliability is higher than the SimFX marking rounds due to the solid tip (compressed polymer and copper IIRC) plus it seems to work okay in cans.
 But they can I have been experimenting with is a beater, and I only shot about 200rds so not enough to see major baffel damage in our baffles, some lighter designs maybe, but we overbuild our NT-4 so it can also work on LMG's etc.)

I've been tazed a few times (only in training, surprising I know), and from all studies, a healthy person not hopped up on drugs/extreme levels of alcohol will have no problems.  But I'd love to see DLR's reaction to anything with my name on it


----------



## Illegio (27 May 2010)

Leave something to percolate for a few days...



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> If your going to a 7.62mm SharpShooter System (or Marksman Rifle System as the 2002 thought) which I think is the way to go at the Section/Squad level, then having the same system with just an optical change seems to me to the be the logical road, as your SharpShooter (which I will no doubt cause all sorts of problems when it gets abreviated to SS, so I will use DM) really only needs to learn more longer range shooting skills to use the same scope as the SASS equipped Sniper, and it merges the supply chain for both systems



Not quite sure what you're saying here. On the one hand, I agree with the idea of sharing a common platform while using different optics if possible (which is what you seem to suggest at first,) but I would not suggest training the sharpshooters to use the sniper optic. If the SASS ever does materialize, I believe that it's almost a given that they will slap a S&B on it, given that both the .338 and the .50 use it, in order to maintain commonality across all platforms. The S&B is a great scope, but it is not an ideal sharpshooter optic.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Also, do not be worried about someone in the section lugging around a 32 pound McMillan that they can't do anything with.  The sharpshooter will have a weapon light enough to be able to still be a fully functional soldier.  In fact, his left bicep will take less of a beating than the M203 gunner because his rifle will only weigh a bit more than a C7.



Call me a skeptic, but is there such a beast that can be used to both clear rooms and shoot accurately out to 800m? And weigh only a bit more than a C7? It may be an issue more related to ammo than the rifle, but shooting the C3A1 out to 800m there have been numerous instances where we were seeing rounds tumbling prior to going through the paper targets. What does this bode for a 7.62 AR-pattern rifle with a barrel 20" or shorter?


----------



## KevinB (28 May 2010)

Longest kill I know of with a 20" Mk11 Mod0 is 1430m by a DevGru SEAL.
  I will admit that I think luck had more to do.

LMT won the UK SharpShooter contract with their 16" gun - out to 800m using 155gr ball.
C3A1's with 168gr Norma match where not a great combo.  175gr is a better round for longer range performance, and if you chrono a 20" versus 24" or 26" 7.62mm you will see the velocity gain on the longer barrels is pretty small.

I've shot a lot of steel out to 1000m with the US Army and USMC with M110's - I fail to beleive that they or I have a greater skill level than anyone at the Sniper School in Gag.


My comment on the S&B - was if you have a SharpShooter using the DM gun, that teaching basic sniper at least for the gun side, it scope and longer distance shooting related (leaving out the stalk etc.)
 Its easier to teach the art if the shooter is familiar with the gun.

 Watching the SS candidates in Camp Pendelton with the M40A3's, the working of the bolt and mag has enough issues, that complicated their shooting.
 Putting them behind the SASS, they where making the shots, as they had less to concentrate on relearning.

Just my point on weapon commonality, and letting the DM/SharpShooters act as a feeder stream for Basic Sniper.



I'll be up to Gagetown for the CISC, and I will have a bunch of toys you guys can play with, and see if this sort of weapon can fulfill the role.
  I am pretty sure that the SR-25 style (thought I think its best served by a REAL SR-25  ) gun can do the mission that is required.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 May 2010)

Illegio,

There is nothing saying that the SASS and Sharpshooter might not find a common optic as well.  Keep in mind that the soldier will be using that optic mostly for close range and a long range shot when required, where as the guy with the SASS would be thinking longer first but also may have to shoot close upon chance contact.  Either way it makes sense to have an optic that can work anwhere 25-600m.

I'm not saying they will have the same optic, just that it's possible that they could.  One thing I can say is that the Sharpshooter rifle will not have a sniper-type scope.  First because he'll fire more rounds closer than farther, and second because he would look too different.

That being said, I don't think you'll see the SASS using the same optics as the medium and long-range rifles but I am not the expert on those so I will leave it to those who are.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 May 2010)

Farva,

I finally got the chance to read those articles you posted (at work of course because it's work-related) and agree with a lot of what the guy says but with a different outcome.

What is undeniable is that a massive amount of ammunition is expended for every dead enemy.  We used to make fun of the Americans for their Vietnam numbers but recent trends show that Canadians or British are no better in contact and still fire thousands of rounds for every dead enemy.

We're still obviously on the same page by saying that of course improving marksmanship is the best thing (must be done with realistic training, not rangisms).

He contradicts himself a bit by saying weapon selection doesn't matter and then he says rifles are far better than MGs, which would lead to better rifles being better still, but that's a tangent and not the point I go after.

The difference is that he throws up the white flag for small arms at that point because they are ineffective, where I see it as quite the opposite, even if it takes thousands of rounds for every dead soldier, for two main reasons:

1.  Cost.  A couple thousand brass-producing rounds are still in line with 1% of the cost of a missile or bomb to have the same effect (and probably 1/10 the cost of artillery rounds [estimate]).

2.  Experience.  Having soldiers doing the shooting and killing in true combat makes them better at it and thus more effective.  While it make take 10,000 rounds for a green platoon to kill someone, that platoon will be more experienced next time and possibly only take 5,000, then 2,000, then 1,000, then 500, etc.  The author is only basing it off of soldiers who have every been trained on a range, but there is no better combat-ready soldier than one who has done it for months.  To quote Grossman, he'll probably be in condition yellow-red vice red-black.

Good reads overall though and like I said agree with most of it, just not the conclusion.


----------



## Haletown (28 May 2010)

Does anyone in the CF still teach  a program called "Quick Shoot" or maybe it was called Quick Kill?

It was taught to reservists at Petawawa summer concentrations waaay back and used Daisy pump BB guns.

It was snap shooting, both eyes open.  Targets were simple things  - tops of smoke grenade cans and parachute flair tubes.

After a few hours of various drills and target types, it was amazing how well you could do with an SMG or an FN at all sorts of ranges.

Cheap, effective & fun !


----------



## SeanNewman (28 May 2010)

Haletown,

There are all sorts of close-range shoots being done now between PWT3 and PWT4 that use paper plate size targets.

The official term is called "snap shooting".

In my assessment it is good to do it but not focus on only close range, lest you find it impossible to hit anything from 400m when you need to.


----------



## Illegio (28 May 2010)

Petamocto,

I agree with you that the S&B is not the proper optic for a sharpshooter rifle, both for the reason you stated (it makes him look different) and because the scope itself is poorly lent to rapidly engaging fleeting targets at different ranges. I do believe, however, that if the SASS does make it into the system, the S&B will be the optic of choice, especially if the SASS becomes the "training" rifle as well as an operational rifle, which is one idea I've heard being floated. Using the S&B simplifies cross-training across the entire family of rifles and consolidates the supply chain. Half of the "conversion course" we run to get new basic snipers up to speed on the .338 and the .50 consists of learning the S&B and calculating corrections based off ballistic data charts, so if we can teach that on the basic course, it will smooth the transition to the bigger rifles and negate the need to learn two different optics.

That said, do I believe that the SASS is an ideal training rifle? No... but unless DLR is willing to pony up for the SASS and the Coyote (and you've already mentioned that the OIC of the Cell wants to get rid of the training rifle), it makes sense to use the same rifle in all three roles (sharpshooter, SASS, and training rifle,) especially since the sharpshooters will naturally be in line for sniper training when it comes up in their unit.

As far as the rifle itself... I think it will have to be effective out to 800m (or 600m effective, 800m "harassing" to be more precise) if for no other reason than if the SASS is to replace the C3A1, it ought to fill the same range band. 600m and 800m are, coincidentally enough, the effective ranges for the C9 and C6 respectively, so if the sharpshooter rifle is to provide a precision-fire alternative or support for the section/platoon MGs, it should have a similar range capability.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Does anyone in the CF still teach  a program called "Quick Shoot" or maybe it was called Quick Kill?
> 
> It was taught to reservists at Petawawa summer concentrations waaay back and used Daisy pump BB guns.
> 
> ...



It was called Quick Kill. The last I saw it being done was the late 60's early 70's.


----------



## KevinB (28 May 2010)

Quick Kill became IIRC part of Shoot to Kill, which then was pussified to become Shoot to Live Program that was the basis of the PWT system that exists and is evolving today.


Petawmocto is 100% on the seasoning of troops, however it also need to be tempered with realistic training, as training scar, and operational scars can become deeply ingrained and soldiers will still consume vast amounts of ammunition if their leadership is not aware and not identifiying corrections to drills etc.

A lot of Combat Camera foottage shows Soldiers (and leaders) firing a lot of ammo -> that way, not aiming at specific targets.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Quick Kill became IIRC part of Shoot to Kill, which then was pussified to become Shoot to Live Program that was the basis of the PWT system that exists and is evolving today.



Shoot to Live has been replaced by CFOSP (the "evolving" part), but generally the PWTs are the same (for now).


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2010)

For those not plugged into the CF anymore what is CFOSP?
  I got Canadian Forces  ;D - and I am assuming that the SP is Shooting Program, but O ? Operational? or Occupational or?

Thanks


----------



## Fabius (30 May 2010)

Operational, 
The rest you figured out. 
CFOSP - Canadian Forces Operational Shooting Program.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

I6, See PM.

It's not perfect, but it really is a good book.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That being said, bullpups sure are nice to carry.



I hate 'em. Carried both the SLR and the SA80 alot in NI. The SLR was always evenly balanced, even with a SUIT sight on top. 

Although the SA80 was shorter and 'handier', with the SUSAT sight dragging the weapon 'outboard' all the time, you'd have a right forearm like Popeye by the end of a long patrol. It was like carrying a long, top heavy pistol. And don't even think about wearing the spider web-like three point sling to counteract the effect as it was, and is, a ridiculous concept for any soldier who had to conduct basic patrolling missions that required you to lurk around with your weapon in various inconvenient positions. The C7, and variants, is vastly superior to the SA80 bullpup IMHO.

Now, if you're talking about the Steyr, there's a good bullpup weapon that fires and handles very nicely.


----------



## TCBF (30 May 2010)

- Regarding 'rounds expended per enemy shot by same calbre' or whatever the proper phrase is, there may other forces at work here.   Last year, when I was deployed in a position where similar discussions occurred, a few of us thought that 'spikes' in ammo usage did not correlate with contact reports, and that perhaps sub-units were taking advantage of time, ammunition and template to get in some good training iterations while on 'operations'.  A notable spike in 66mm usage at one point comes to mind.  After the usual black humoured remarks about a 'continuous live fire exercise with IEDs' , we felt that a shortage of ammo, template and time (time being measured from when your element reaches it's final deployable strength, NOT when the TF is first stood up) in Canada may have contibuted to the situation.

- Great thread, thanks to you all.  Regards,

Tom


----------



## Tuukka (1 Jun 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FYI
> 
> 1) We also make the M110 SASS
> 2) Armalite cannot touch us in a performance based specification
> ...



Kevin,

What are you refering to by "killed the program".

HK Oberndorf has no intention of stopping the HK417 manufacture or development.

Best Regards!

Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

Tuukka said:
			
		

> HK Oberndorf has no intention of stopping the HK417 manufacture or development.



Do tell...


----------



## Big Red (1 Jun 2010)

Good to have you on here Tuukka! Coming back over anytime soon?


----------



## Tuukka (2 Jun 2010)

Big Red said:
			
		

> Good to have you on here Tuukka! Coming back over anytime soon?



Hey, I should be at SHOT 2011...

This reminds me, need to get some sights from Aimpoint  ..our Para Minimi is still lacking one..


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2010)

Sigh, another call to get new calibre weapon.

The worst offense in this article is the author does not differentiate between the 7.62X39 short of the AK-47 series of weapons and the 7.62X51 NATO round for battle rifles and GPMGs. There is a great deal of difference in recoil, muzzle energy and  stopping power between these rounds (and marksmanship is very important indeed, having come home from the range sporting bruised cheeks when forgetting the proper hold with an FN-C1 Rifle).

I have no doubt that the 6.8 calibre has some advantage over the 5.56 round in _some_ applications, but from a logistics and financial veiwpoint, 5.56 is "good enough" for the current generation of assault rifles and LMG's, and there is probably room for more improvement in the existing rounds rather than going for an entirely new calibre and weapons system. That is the "new round" we should be concentrating upon.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fox-news-gets-it-wrong-m4-rifle-works-fine-the-problem-is-the-bullet/?singlepage=true



> *Fox News Gets It Wrong: M4 Rifle Works Fine; the Problem Is the Bullet*
> 
> An article on issues with the weapons our soldiers carry in Afghanistan misses the mark, but the M4 does need a more accurate round right away.
> June 2, 2010
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (2 Jun 2010)

Thuc,

The odds of Canada doing something that is outside of what the US does is almost nil.

Further, bullet technology is reaching its pinnacle for development and advancement and it's getting to the point where we must consider the current generation of small arms relatively mastered.

It makes more sense to strive toward the next generation of soldier than in does to worry about 5, 6, or 7mm.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jun 2010)

Yup.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Jun 2010)

Any increase we make with the current platforms will be an incremental increase.

To make it worth changing platforms or calibers, there should be more than just an incremental increase in effectiveness (IMO)

Bring on the 40 MW phased plasma rifles....

I think the nearest thing to a huge increase in effectiveness would perhaps have been the G-11 (caseless, ultra high burst ROF etc) but for various reasons it didn't work out.

Not saying that we should have bought G-11's, but I think it was the nearest thing to a huge increase in potential effectiveness.

YMMV, and this is on the edge of anything that could be called my lane, so I'm trying to be careful with my field of fire...

NS


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2010)

Tuukka said:
			
		

> Kevin,
> 
> What are you refering to by "killed the program".
> 
> ...



Interesting.

 I was in somewhere when someone got a call from a senior element at HK USA saying it was a no/go (we had recently beaten them in a very thorough test elswhere).  I am aware of the fleas and bugs it has, LAPD SWAT being the open source group that sent them back to go with FN SCAR-H, due to accuracy and reliability issues.  

 Recently I attended a segment of the Singapore Armed Forces Semi-Auto Sniper System and Infantry Designated Marksman Program.
  Of the 10 enterants, only 5 where short listed, as concerns where about extremely new companies not being able to bring a real product to market.
FN pulled the Mk17 out of the trial due to accuracy (the Mk17 SSR is not yet available)
Hk pulled the Hk417 out citing Accuracy and Reliability issues
  Hk is also late on some small deliveries (25 and under) (11 months in the case of a Naval Element in Singapore)

 LWRCI did not attend with a weapon.  

US Ordnance (with the LMT MWS) and ourselves where the only entities to show up with functional working guns.

If Hk is not killing the 417 program I wish them well, however they need to get a working system out there.


----------



## Tuukka (3 Jun 2010)

Kevin,

Thanks for the reply!

The reason I asked is that I verified this directly from Oberndorf.

It is also quite a current topic for us, as one of the primary weapons our new fast attach mount is intended for, is the HK417.

I have also not heard of reliability or accuracy issues from end users in Europe. I was visiting a particular unit last week and a specific topic was the HK417, no issues.

A quick shot from a test session on Tuesday, we have also had no issues in the accuracy department with our HK417 ( 12" and 20" uppers );

Lapua 167gr Scenar @ 100 meters


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2010)

Interesting.

Yours have the adjustable gas regulator for Unsuppressed - versus Suppressed?

Also you have any 16" ones?

 The 12" uppers are in my opinion a horrible idea, why carry 7.62 NATO in that length, as its acting like a 30-30 or worse...
I know its a customer driven idea, but there are times to explain to the customer you can offer him more in less, the Hk418 in 6.8SPC for instance will give better terminal performance with less weight and recoil.

The other issue is the 417 tears up mounted NV systems.

I wonder why HkUSA said what they did to who they did, and also why it tanked the Brit Sharpshooter trial for accuracy etc, and why they pulled out of Singapore.
  I'm curious as a gun guy, not as a KAC guy.


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Jun 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ... and also why it tanked the Brit Sharpshooter trial for accuracy etc...



Knowing what they picked, can you have any reasonable confidence they picked the best rifle available?

_"From the makers who brought you such fine weapon system as the SA80..."_

(Not literally, just saying that the UK is probably the only military with a worse procurement record than us, mostly due to BAE).


----------



## Tuukka (4 Jun 2010)

Kevin,

To my knowledge all HK417s have the adjustable gas port. The only ones I have seen without are the 16" HK MR308 civilian versions.

We do not have a 16" currently, but will most likely be purchasing one very soon.

I believe you are pretty spot on with regards to the 12" upper.

I know that at least one of the participants at the UK trials also did bad in the accuracy department, from personally talking to the owner of the company, but I believe the ammo used was not the best possible quality or type, maybe that is why the HK did not do well? 

I have no personal feelings towards any of the weapon manufacturers, just that we prefer to have an up to date weapon test collection and as a gun guy, I prefer guns that run reliably and accurately..  


See you at SHOT?


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2010)

The Brits are actually very good a running trials (and so usually are Cdn's and the US Mil).
The SA80 aside, however it was a system that met their requirements for a short OAL, with a longer barrel and it was made in England.

 The British had the L119 win as the C8SFW in their SOF weapon trial, and ended up with the L119A1 as issues with the mounting of the Hk AG was damaging the front sight gas block.
  (Unlike PEO Solider they fired enough rounds to see the interface issues)

However the British did use 155gr RG ball for their Sharpshooter role.  The SAF ammuntion was 167gr SCENAR BTHP Lapua, 170gr Flatbase FMJ, and 185gr FMJ-BT. 

I will be at SHOT of course...
  We are having another party with Cerebus (Remington Military, and AAC) and Magpul at the Voodoo Lounge as well  :nod:


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Jun 2010)

I6,

You might be talking about the relatively small potatoes small arms purchases; I'm talking about the mega-billion dollar contracts that have been wasted on things like the Eurofighter and anti-submarine helos.


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2010)

Good point, I am a gun guy, and while I always thought I would have been an awesome CDS, I really don't have a clue about non small arms related issues.


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Jun 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ...I always thought I would have been an awesome CDS, I really don't have a clue about non small arms related issues.



That's fine, you can be CDS not knowing about other trades.  I am was made OIC Small Arms with no former experience; all OJT, baby.  Thankfully I am surrounded by Sgts, MWOs, and Capts who are former MWOs that really know what they're talking about.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jun 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Any increase we make with the current platforms will be an incremental increase.
> 
> To make it worth changing platforms or calibers, there should be more than just an incremental increase in effectiveness (IMO)
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2010)

Looking at the G11 it really was before its time.
  However you need to send your armorers to a swiss watch maker class, as the mechanism is very intricate...


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Jun 2010)

As has already been brought up, it is so relatively incremental that it's not really worth it to invest a ton into changing between 5-6-7-8mm (or whatever).

As a general purpose rifle, I'll take the C7A2 any day over what a lot of other countries have.

Also has been brought up, missing someone with a 7.62 rifle isn't going to incapacitate them more than missing them with a 5.56 rifle will.

In my assessment (and the hundreds of people involved who chose the 5.56 platform to begin with), the overall effect is more bad guys killed using rapid rate than with 7.62 inside 300m.

That being said, as stated above I am a big proponents for adding _some_ 7.62 capability to more consistently hit 300-600.  But getting back to the purpose of the thread, I think if everyone had a battle rifle we'd be less effective.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2010)

Discussion on the C-6 has been moved to a new thread.

Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun

This thread is about the Battle Rifle. Please keep it that way.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2010)

Just one point that I feel belongs in this thread and not the GPMG thread:
I feel that some are confusing the current discussion when 7.62mm is mentioned. The battle rifle is for accurate single-shot fire out to 600m.  The calibre of 7.62mm is mentioned for many reasons, one of which is that with it, it's possible to have a relatively flat trajectory out to that range, making aiming a bit easier to manage.  A 7.62mm MG is a different cat, and certainly not for accurate single-shot fire out to 600m!  (See other thread for details)


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jun 2010)

In my opinion the C6 vs C9 debate is quite relevant and parallel to the battle rifle vs assault rifle debate because a lot more people can conceptualize the difference between the C6 and C9 so it may help them understand the latter a bit better.

Arguably the pros and cons of each are quite similar in that one weighs more than the other and because of that you get some more power and range.  The big difference being the effect in one category is a beaten zone killing everything and the effect of the other being a precision (one man) incapacitation.

What is great about the modern battle rifles though is that they are close enough to an assault rifle size-wise that you can insert some 7.62 systems to increase the overall effectiveness at section level, where as a C6 is not swappable with a C9 because it is too big for section movement.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2010)

I would suggest that if desired a Lightweight 7.62mm Assault MG (FN Mk48 or US Ordnance Mk43) could be used at section levels.

However I think that its a tool in the tool box, and while an option for SOF units with large budgets, its probably not an option for the convention forces (but the US Army has fielded Mk48's to convention forces in Afghan to lighten the load, and the C6/M240 is not reaaly needed outside of defensive positions in Afghan, but the lighter weight is much appreciated while out and about.

The Battle Rifle - as either a SOF Assault Rifle, or a DM can give an 800m envelope with a skilled sniper, and 600-700m performance with a less skilled shooter.
  Precision fire can never be discounted, and the bonus in a COIN environment are priceless.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2010)

I-6's point, supported by a number of others, about the need for a section/platoon/company "armoury" from which the right weapons can be selected seems to me to be about right.

If you are doing most of your fighting lying down (prone position, stable platform, engaging targets either singular or in hordes as was the case for NATO and is the case, if I understand correctly, for FOBs), tactilcally defensive, then 7.62 is the answer.   The logistics of the heavier round are less onerous when you have gone firm and the supply system can keep you fed.

If you are doing most of your fighting on your feet (patrolling, advance to contact, meeting engagements, only supplied with what you can carry, engaging targets around the next corner and up the stairs) then a lighter round, 5.56 makes more sense.

If you can't get one rifle/mg combination that will fire both calibres, and from what I can gather on this and other threads that is not completely out of the question with this talk of interchangeable uppers and receivers, and M16s being fitted with Gas Pistons to make them operate like an FNC1 or an AK47, then at least you can get the same weapon in two different calibres and keep them both in stores.



At least you will have common training, drill and handling.   And the field commander gets to decide if he wants a room clearing or rapid reaction assault section in his defensively oriented platoon/company, or if he wants a heavy support section in his platoon that has been tasked for a clearing mission.


----------



## Illegio (5 Jun 2010)

I think the big problem with the "mix-and-match" armoury concept is the cost and the logistics of implementing it. That, and by micro-tailoring your force to deal with specific situations, you are reducing its overall flexibility. In a defensive situation, the issue of a 7.62mm rifle providing greater range and firepower is overshadowed by your crew-served weapons bringing in another world of firepower. Better, IMO, to keep a force that can deal with 75% of everything than 100% of one specific kind of situation.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2010)

Your right, the Arms Room Concept is expensive and logistical intensive, and is usually only instituted by SOF entities that can both fund, and support them.  For elements than can do it, it does offer a extreme amount of flexibility.

I doubt that it can be done effectively in a convensional setup, however looking at some of the options, and incorporating them into the Pl and Section, can offer more fexibility, for little added costs and minimal logistical burden.

The Section DM/Battle Rifle really does not take away from the shooter capability and only adds.

I'm not really knoweldgeable about the Mk43 and Mk48 to offer much of an employment opinion on them, beyond seeing that they have pluses and minuses when compared to the M240/C6/Mag-58.  For the CF, the Mk43 is a tough sell as its M60 based, and the country has no M60 history, while it may be usefully to CANSOF, it would be extremly awkward to field for the rest of the CF.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Your right, the Arms Room Concept is expensive and logistical intensive, and is usually only instituted by SOF entities that can both fund, and support them.  For elements than can do it, it does offer a extreme amount of flexibility.
> 
> I doubt that it can be done effectively in a convensional setup, however looking at some of the options, and incorporating them into the Pl and Section, can offer more fexibility, for little added costs and minimal logistical burden.



With the greatest respect, but in an Army that can only field 27 active companies I would strongly suggest that the whole force could be financed as a "special" force.  Given the high price of everything else fielded I have difficulty accepting that maintaining a 20 to 33% overage in rifles and mgs at the company level is going to break the bank. (33% overage means 4 weapons for every 3 soldiers).

As to logistics, the Coy is already carrying 5.56 and 7.62 in its current scale (not to mention 25, 40 and occasionally TV2s 60 and a bunch of 66 and 84s).

It would seem to me theat there would be some merit in at leaste a whole section carrying the same calibre of ammunition ( as in a heavy squad equipped with DM?SS?SASS?Battle Rifle and C6.  Let the DM pair up with the C6 gunner  with the DM acting as asssitant gunner and both of them spotting for the other.  Precision and Area Support.


----------



## Illegio (5 Jun 2010)

It's the money, or if you prefer, the lack thereof that currently dictates the number of active companies that we have. SOF-type forces tend to be inordinately expensive relative to their size, and as they say, money does not grow on trees. For the Arms Room Concept that Mr. Boland is talking about, there is considerably more than a "33% overage." Taking into account procurement costs, support contracts, spare parts and training drives up the unit costs even further. New systems are not bought in a vacuum. This is money that has to come from somewhere, and given that the military budget scheme is a zero-sum game, money for this enterprise must invariably be drawn from someplace else.

As far as the sharpshooter concept goes, I wholly support the integration of a sharpshooter at the section and platoon levels. I was, admittedly, not sold on the 7.62mm solution at the section level, as I think that keeping ammunition commonality is important, but having actually used the C7CT... suffice it to say that I can't support the use of a 5.56mm sharpshooter rifle, at least not to complement the section/platoon level MGs.

Going back to the money issue... There is a fairly straightforward argument to be made for the procurement of a sharpshooter rifle, especially if that rifle is also selected as the new short-range semiautomatic sniper rifle. I think it would be next to impossible to sell the Arms Room Concept on an army-wide scale. As Mr. Boland mentions, the sharpshooter rifle takes away nothing (or very little) from the current section capability while adding a medium-range precision fire capability that the infantry currently lacks at any level.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2010)

One Arms Room I have heard discussed is:
Hk45C (pistol) 
HkMP7
Hk416 (10.4") or Mk18 Mod0
Hk416 (14.5") or M4A1
Mk12 Recce (16")
Mk12 Mod1 (18")

Mk11 Mod0 (or Mod2)
Mk11 Carbine (SR-25 Battle Rifle w/ Stainless Steel barrel)

Mk46
Mk43

And suppressors for all systems
For one shooter...

  As well some of the guns may have a spare to ensure one is operation on a deployment.

You're talking about a 900%+ overage.


A more realistic Arms Room for conventional forces would hold
C8A3 (C8SFW) 16", with additional 11.5" and 20" uppers (at 50% overage each).

Additionally 2 Battle Rifle / section - with both 16" and 20" uppers.

It is still however a HUGE increase in weapons, and the required CQ and Pl HQ headaches, and logistical support.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With the greatest respect, but in an Army that can only field 27 active companies I would strongly suggest that the whole force could be financed as a "special" force...



You would suggest that, but you would be wrong  ;D and not wrong because of funding weapons but wrong because of how much we are paid (and other personnel-related costs).

The human body (as in "us", not "stuff") now accounts for over 50% of the CF budget.

Just submit that "We need to make less money so we can have more stuff" memo on Monday...

I say the above somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but we really are absurdly expensive.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2010)

Petamocto, you're on your own with that one.

I don't need that much grief in my life.  ;D

Let's say, for arguments sake, that somewhere between the 900% solution and the 0% solution there is an affordable compromise.   And frankly, as a tax-payer in a G8/G20 country (what are we?  about 15?) it wouldn't bother me to cough up another couple of nickels if I knew it was going to a good cause.  A good cause does not include funding another mahogany desk ..... but I digress.

From what I understand about the discussion so far the funding envelope extends to buying another 3 rifles per platoon (together with scale).   If the platoon keeps its current weapons that would start pushing us into the 7-10% overage range.  Increasing the issue of C6s (didn't we order enough to equip and 80,000 man army some years ago - or are they all clapped out now?) would increase that overage another 5-10% at a relatively modest cost.  But I don't want to get hung up on the numbers as a statistic.

I am just saying that before supplying everybody with a Mastercraft locker on wheels maybe we could make the craftsman that much more effective if we could find the budget to supply everybody with both a hammer AND a screwdriver..... and with a little bit of luck Scharnhorst's axe as well.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jun 2010)

They're all from different envelopes so it's hard to judge them on a one-vs-one purchase.  

Each branch down the tree gets their own slice of the money and is allowed to decide what they think is important.  That bin rat with new lockers may have just decided they were important but the infantry wanted to pursue a CCV (hypothetically of course) that drained all the money.

We had the same argument with the AF getting their good rain jackets first; nobody forced us not to buy them.

You need to the charts right from the top though to get the big picture context view, and that view shows that personnel are the big elephant in the room.  Not just salary, but all the other costs involved like moves, casualty care, etc.  All worth while but it all adds up and like I said is now more than half of the budget.


----------



## Illegio (6 Jun 2010)

I think the issue is getting a bit muddled. If asked what the proper amount of money to spend on defense should be, any serving member would probably answer "more." That's really neither here nor there, as what we have is what we have, and that discussion is probably outside the purview of this thread.

As far as the sharpshooter rifles adding overage to the platoon or company TO&E... There are already spare rifles in stores, but they are really only considered "overage" in the sense that they are replacements for rifles that accidentally get run over by LAVs and the like. If we were, for example, clearing compounds, I would rather pull the C9s out of the sections and task them with overwatch, posting corners, etc... than put the C9s back in stores and issue C7s.

I think that many of the benefits of a mix-and-match armoury can be had simply by swapping personnel around within a section, platoon, or company. For the big-ticket items like C6s, of which relatively few exist within the TO&E of a dismounted company... As was mentioned in the C6 offshoot of this thread, there's nothing saying that they couldn't be pulled from the pintle mounts on the LAVs, if you keep a spare butt and pistol grip kicking around.

To use the tool analogy, a crowbar can do many things. It can't do brain surgery, but that's why we have SOF...


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Jun 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> To use the tool analogy, a crowbar can do many things. It can't do brain surgery, but that's why we have SOF...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jun 2010)

My apologies for pulling an otherwise interesting and informative discussion off on a tangent.

I understand departmental budgeting and interests competing for the same dollar.  But that is what senior management is for.

From my civilian perspective, if over 50% of your costs are personnel related (presumably salary, benefits, training, personal clothing, room & board, long term liability and sundry others exclusive of the operational kit they are issued to complete their tasks - including crowbars) then the usual strategy would be to:

a) minimize the number of personnel
b) maximize the capabilities of the individual.

In my opinion option a) is a non-starter.  For the type of "policing" work you are being asked to engage in there is a need for "faces / hands / boots " to engage in face-to-face/hand-to-hand/boot-to-boot contact.

Consequently option b) seems to me to be the better track to pursue.  

When you are hiring a soldier that, in the best case your are going to have to pay for 2 or 3 years, in the worst case will be paying them or their dependents for a lifetime then the incremental cost of equipping the unit to which that soldier is assigned with an additional $2-5000 system,  appears to me to be pretty marginal indeed.  If I continue with my undertanding of what TV2 and Petamocto have been saying about the DM/SS weapon I don't see why the 3 systems (or 4 or 6 or whatever) allocated per platoon should be anything other than platoon stores, ( just like the CG-84/C6/60mm) with qualified soldiers being assigned to the weapon and grouped as the field commanders deem fit.

Or is this another case of my thickheadedness causing me to violently argue the obvious?

Edit: 27 Companies x 8 new 7.62 systems in the CQ's locker at $5000@ equals an Army-wide cost of $1,080,000 (16 obviously equals $2,160,000).  Given existing ammunition the impact on ammunition logistics would be minimal.  Given the intent to field at least one unit  per Coy  then the logistic burden is not more onerous for 8 than it is for 1.  Given systems that are variants of existing platforms then the impact on training is minimized.  

 I agree that we are not talking about crowbars or axes here.  Equally we are not talking about hover tank mounted plasma rifles. I can't believe that the conversion training from 5.56 to 7.62 (or 9mm or 12 gauge) would be particularly difficult.


----------



## Illegio (6 Jun 2010)

I'm going to argue your point on short-term soldiers being a best-case financial investment for one reason - training costs. Setting aside things like experience and maturity which cannot be quantified in a financial sense, it costs more to train a new soldier up to standard than it does to maintain one that'a already trained.

The point of contention on procurement was the implementation of a mix-and-match armoury ala Arms Room Concept. The need for the sharpshooter rifle and the semi-automatic sniper rifle has been identified and the ball is indeed rolling through DLR's courts. When and in what form these rifles will materialize...? Alas, my skills in interpreting entrails and the bones of small animals avail me nothing. If the sharpshooter does become a section-level position (which it should,) then ideally the rifle will become that person's day-to-day weapon, as opposed to something that languishes in stores until someone higher up the food chain feels a need for it.

The issue of costs is more convoluted than you suggest. Weapon systems are not bought in a vacuum, and there are many associated costs, including warranties, spare parts, new training for the techs... etc, even down to the minutiae of transporting the new rifles to their respective units and registering them. New training for the riflemen and new ammo WILL be additional costs. A sharpshooter rifle is not a machinegun is not a sniper rifle is not an assault rifle. Petamocto is the OIC of revising the existing PWTs and the future sharpshooter package, so he can speak to greater effect on that subject that I. As far as ammo goes, unless we start using match-grade ammo for all of our 7.62mm systems, we will require new ammunition for the sharpshooter rifles. Snipers don't shoot machinegun ammo (except in extremis) through the C3A1s, and if we want the sharpshooters to be consistent, they won't use it either.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jun 2010)

I'll stipulate your point on short-term soldiers.  We agree on a cost-effectiveness basis.  A long-service army is more effective than a short-service army.  My point, unexpectedly opening a weak flank, was in terms of absolute costs - and even there I can stand to be corrected.

With respect to the materiel issues I do think there is an element of "the best being the enemy of the good" in this discussion.  I agree that better ammunition, furniture, optics, training etc will give better results.  However, referencing a study posted on these boards that escapes me just now about the shooting abilities of the US and British armies in the first half of the century past, vice the capabilities of those same armies currently - partly due to kit, partly due to training, partly due to philosophy, I find it difficult to credit that we are incapable of fielding army-wide systems that would enable the section, if not the individual soldier, to engage targets with precision at 600-800 m.

The Lee-Enfield, general issue rifle with general issue ammunition, was used for sniping in WW1 and WW2 and continued in that role well into the 1980s at least.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jun 2010)

I would argue that the notional capabilties where a lot less in years previous than today.

 Years ago the nation of rifleman started shooting a long time before the Army, however my opinion is that while marksmanship may have been superior - combat marksmanship was often not.  

 Secondly advances in Night Vision, IR Lasers, Sound Suppressors have antiquated the majority of weapons systems, especially Sniper Weapon Systems that existed pre 9/11, or forced extensvie modernization efforts.

Our capabilities have increased exponentially since then, and the Militaries of at least Canada, the United States of America, Australia, and the United Kingdom, know a ton more about combat shooting than they did before.

We kill many more of the enemy in small arms engagements than they do of us, and we have adopted weapons systems that take into account the majority of the combat requirements.

However unlike SOF entities that are generally used for a variety of specific missions, and have equipment that is specialized for those missions, conventional forces are the jack of all trades, and they are equipped to do the broad spectrum of operations with pieces of equipement that compromise.

I will argue against part of my Arms Room concept for a bit:
10-11" 5.56mm guns do not do well with C77/M855 SS109 type ammuntion that relies of impact velocity, and one just has to ready MSG Paul Howe's account of what happend to CAG when they ran out of their specific 50gr BTHP loading for their CAR-15's and M4's in Somalia, and had to use M855 from the Rangers.  The targets (malnourished Somalis) did not have enough tissue for the M855 to yaw and fragment, and they had multiple occasions of failure to neutralise on multiple CoM shots even in very close.
 SOF units that can get specialized ammunitions for Short Barrel guns, can do very well with them, also on some missions it makes sence for them to carry a very lightweight relatively underpowered system (like the HkMP7), when they are either doing a specific hit that is expected at close range and they can get head shots, or when they are doing SR, and their backup is a radio and specific fire support from USAF or OGA aerial elements.

So unless an across the board ammunition change - like the USMC going to the ATK SOST round - short barrel gun systems can be a liability especially when needing to make longer range shots with effect.

Prior to Afghanistan, no one really expected the Squad or Section to need shoot beyond a 300m window, and a lot of the equipment for the convenstional Armies where tailored to the <300m fight.
  Iraq for the US Military compounded that, with the majority of engagement being urban in nature.  The same with the British with their NI experiences and Iraq.

Now in Afghanistan, the terrain in a lot of areas does not lend itself to Mechanized warfare, so the LAV/Stryker/Bradley/Warrior and its integral firepower cannot always support the troops, additionally the layout of the conflict does not always allow for the area to be pounded with 155mm/JDAM's etc.

 Thus the Section/Squad Dm with a "Battle Rifle" type system can fill the need for precision fire to the 500-600m envelope and beyond.
  
 Now 5.56mm can sometimes fill the bill, there was a R22eR CSM in Bosnia years ago that got a 873m kill with a C7A1 - however it did take a number of rounds, and from what I was told the CSM had spent most of his career in Recce as a sniper - so he had skill and experience on his side as well.  5.56mm does have problems with long range barrier penetration, and also unless using match ammuntion, does not have the best long range accuracy, and trajectory does not allow for range or wind errors like some 7.62mm loads (however in others it can be superior), but single loading 80gr SMK rounds (to long for magazine feeding) may be effective for the Long Range KD matches at Camp Perry etc., but does not really make any sense in Combat.

I will agree wholeheartedly with Illegio that adopting a SharpShooter system should mean that the same thought also goes into ammuntion selection as the platform and using C21 ball should be an emergency activity and not standard practice.

 The UK Sharpshooter stayed with the Brit 155gr Ball round, as the British, unlike the US, Australian, and Canadians, beleive that OTM rounds should not be issued.   I beleive however in talking with some UK pers, that that was more an interim method, until they can staff a specific round thru the system.
  
 Personally I beleive that a 16" 7.62mm M16FOW based System fills the bill for this role, especially when the Country issues a M16based platform as its general issue system.  One of the biggest drawbacks to this was until very recently none of the 7.62mm AR systems where reliable enough for this role.
 Now you have our (KAC) SR-25 EM Carbine and to a lesser extent the LMT MWS, and Larue OSR.  That are field reliable, and accurate enough to engage enemy targets and score kills to 800m.

SOF elements have been issuing shorter than rifle 7.62mm systems for some time, and the need has now been identified for conventional forces too.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I find it difficult to credit that we are incapable of fielding army-wide systems that would enable the section, if not the individual soldier, to engage targets with precision at 600-800 m.



We've already got that... it's called 'fire control orders e.g., "Section, 600, on axis, men in open, rapid, fire!". The disciplined, team based, application of fire is one of our greatest long range killing/supression weapons, and arguably something that we do better than many other armies.


----------



## Illegio (6 Jun 2010)

To be fair, he was talking about precision fire. While section fire is hardly indiscriminate, it's not really precise, either.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jun 2010)

D&B - does that qualify as precision support or area support?  From here that looks like a comparable fire order (showing age here) to "C2 group, 600, on axis, men in open, 30 rounds rapid, fire!"  and is different to "No. 2 rifleman, 300, 1 o'clock, man in green and white striped shirt leaning up against lamp-post waving arms about, 1 round, in your own time, fire!".

With respect to the need for a new platform, either as an addition to, or a replacement for, the existing platform I am, frankly, agnostic.  I don't know enough to be able to offer an opinion (though that seldom stops me elsewhere).  

However, I do feel strongly that we (and by that I mean organizations in general - both civvy and uniformed) can get wrapped up in the minutiae to such an extent that inertia ensues.  

Many models have been proposed as to how a mixed 5.56/7.62 capability can be incorporated, if it is necessary, or even transitioning back to 7.62.  

I really don't accept the logistics argument - given not only the mix of calibres available at the section level on general distribution but also the mix of types of the same calibre (ball, tracer, AP, AP-T, SAPHEI-T, Frangible, blank - loose, bandolier, link) that adding one more existing NSN to the scale will impose an insuperable burden.

And even the training argument, with respect to calibre, is not particularly persuasive.  IMHO ther best form of training involves the individual being allowed to practice - not sitting in classrooms with highly trained and disciplined (and paid) trainers showing them how they should be doing it.  Better an hour of instruction and 1000 rounds on the ranges than hours upon hours in class.  It has the advantage tha trigger pullers generally enjoy pulling triggers regardless of the platform or the calibre.  

Buy the weapons, supply the ammunition, allot the range time.  Those are the budget issues that have always tripped up every weapons system and determine whether the equipment gets trained on or is left to languish in the CQ's locker.  In my limited experience training on coy/pl weaons was not hampered by a lack of troops willing to show up at ranges, or a lack or ranges or range time, or range staff, or even the CO's willingness to risk "his" weapons being lost or damaged.  It was always a lack of ammunition due to budget constraints.

With respect to the transition training of units perhaps some of those that were there during the transition from 7.62 to 5.56 could enlighten me as to how that was handled and the problems encountered.

Likewise perhaps some of the armourers could weigh in on how much transition training they needed to add a new system to their repertoire.

All of which, to veer back to the thread, is to argue that, in best Canadian incrementalist tradition, supply the capability and the troops will figure out how to get the most out of it.  We are not talking about equipping  1,000,000 conssripts here.  We are talking about 3-4,000 higly skilled and motivated , and long serving, individuals.  They may not be SOF but they could surely be considered special.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jun 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> To be fair, he was talking about precision fire. While section fire is hardly indiscriminate, it's not really precise, either.



Thanks Illegio.  I saw your post after I hit the switch.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2010)

I thought I had posted on the SARP issue yesterday but I guess the net phantom was hungry.

 Train the Trainer
SNCO's sent to CTC (Inf School) to learn SARP (which IIRC was a 28 day event).

 Unit NCO and Officer Training - which IIRC was about 4-5days.

 Troop Training - 3 days plus PWT etc, and remedial work.


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Jun 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> ...While section fire is hardly indiscriminate, it's not really precise, either.



It _*can*_ be inside 300m though if only your riflemen are engaging and not your C9 gunners.

In theory you could initiate a section-level ambush/raid with 6 x C7 bullets at the same time to kill 6 x specific people if everyone including commanders fired.  Well aware that situation would not present itself unless the 6 x people you were killing were all gate guards standing at attention, but I digress...

The range gap deficiency is precision fire* 300/400-600m.  As mentioned the C7 is quite capable of 0-300m precision fire, and the C9 is capable of beaten zone fire at 600m, but what we were lacking is ability to quickly engage something at 600m and kill it in the minimum time.

In a perfect range environment on a sunny day with no wind when you have several minutes to slow down your heart rate and make range corrections, you can quite reliably bring a C7 onto a Fig11 target from 600m.  The problem is that the average shooter does not have the marksmanship or more importantly the time to make that shot happen.

You have to understand how important it is to make the range corrections with the C7 from that distance because you're talking several metres of rise and fall of the round.  To hit someone at 600m, it's almost like lobbing a football that would clear well above someone standing 400m away.  

*Note* Infantry precision = one man; not the same as sniper precision.


----------



## Illegio (7 Jun 2010)

Yes, my mistake. I should have clarified that section fire beyond the effective range of the C7 is not really precision fire. I assumed that we were still talking about precision fire out to 600 - 800m.


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Jun 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> Yes, my mistake.



My friend, now I feel bad.  I apologize because going back and looking at my post it seems like my entire tangent is aimed at you but only the first line was.

Everything after that was just babbling on the topic.

I should have written BREAK BREAK BREAK.

Owe you a beer if you thought I was giving you the pokey chest .50 cal finger.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Jun 2010)

<---- signs up for free beer....offers free pokey chest session


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Jun 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> ...offers free pokey chest session



We have to be drunk by that point, though.  And you will definitely hear this: "...and another thing, _buds_...".

("Buds" will be said in a very condescending tone to imply that we are not in fact friends at all, and it would be great if you were only 5'6").


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> We have to be drunk by that point, though.  And you will definitely hear this: "...and another thing, _buds_...".
> 
> ("Buds" will be said in a very condescending tone to imply that we are not in fact friends at all, and it would be great if you were only 5'6").


The pokey chest career management technique works best if used with the three deadliest (slurred) words in the army's vocabulary, "and furthermore, general."

Note: I never did that, to the best of my recollection. I did however on occasion discuss the shortcomings of a certain hazard to navigation at the mouth of the Cataraqui River with some graduates of that august institution several steps higher on the rank ladder than your humble correspondent (who never went there.)


----------



## Illegio (8 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> My friend, now I feel bad.  I apologize because going back and looking at my post it seems like my entire tangent is aimed at you but only the first line was.



Petamocto,

No harm done. I think my reply may have appeared to be overly contrite, which is why I spent about a half hour trying to edit it whilst bouncing around in the back of a G-wagen while cell reception cut in and out. My post was addressed solely to the suggestion of 600m section fire.

I take your meaning on "infantry precise" vs. "sniper precise," though I believe that it is the environment in which one operates that really distinguishes the two. After all, the fundamentals that govern general infantry marksmanship are the exact same ones that govern the sniper's craft, writ large.

Mr. Boland,

Can you elaborate on the SARP training? Google returns on Sardine/Anchovy Recruitment Project lead me to believe you may have something different in mind.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jun 2010)

SARP = "Small Arms Replacement Program"


----------



## KevinB (8 Jun 2010)

Mr.  ;D TechnoViking is correct.

 SARP was the replacement of the 7.62mm Rifle/LAR systems to the 5.56mm


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> D&B - does that qualify as precision support or area support?  From here that looks like a comparable fire order (showing age here) to "C2 group, 600, on axis, men in open, 30 rounds rapid, fire!"  and is different to "No. 2 rifleman, 300, 1 o'clock, man in green and white striped shirt leaning up against lamp-post waving arms about, 1 round, in your own time, fire!".



Anyone so dressed and acting out in such a way should be shot on sight anyways, on principle, as a fashion criminal  ;D

In any case, it's as precise as an infantry section should need to get out to 600m IMHO. After that, it's time to use our friend the Gimpy or, by special request, the 60mm MOR!


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Jun 2010)

"SARP" (more precisely SARP 2) is already an obsolete term and has been replaced by three more that I can't remember from my couch at home.

Instead of an all-inclusive "SARP", they have broken it down further IIRC into a weapons, equipment, etc type breakdown.

Sorry my memory is fuzzy; this was from the Ex Bayonet Infantry Conference last month.  Hopefully there is a DLR/LFDTS rep on here who can clarify.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Hopefully there is a DLR/LFDTS rep on here who can clarify.


Oh, great, call in DLR!  Now God just killed a kitten!


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Jun 2010)

Why is it when I hear DLR I have this uncontrolable urge to curl up and cry!


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Jun 2010)

DLR is similar to America.

There are all sorts of bad feelings about "the whole", but nobody really knows someone bad from there.

DLR is filled with awesome guys who are doing a hell of a lot of work, but they're just so massively overworked and understaffed that they can't possibly get any credit (similar to a battalion Sig O).

Further, they know damn well what the field force wants and they genuinely want the troops to get good kit but they have so much red tape and politics to get through that they end up looking like the bad guys undeservedly.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jun 2010)

I know someone bad from DLR, and you guys know me, so you know someone bad from America  ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (9 Jun 2010)

DLR, f___ yeah!  Comin' again, to delay another project...


----------



## Dissident (10 Jun 2010)

Wow. I actually read that in my head just like the Team America intro.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jun 2010)

Brit L129A1 Sharpshooter


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jun 2010)

And wots 'at beside 'im?

Edit: and further to Kevin's post MOD Video


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And wots 'at beside 'im?



Must be a GPMG that has been torn out of a Warrior coax mount or something.

As a proper Royal Canadian, the only thing I notice about that photo was that the sharpshooter's ejection port cover is open.  I don't care about gloves.


----------



## Illegio (12 Jun 2010)

Getting nitpicky, I know, but not a big fan of the typical AR-style stocks when shooting bipod. Have a tendency to hit the latch with the supporting hand, dumb thing collapses at inopportune moments, even though this guy's is fully collapsed already, and he's using an MG-style hold (probably for that reason, and/or to get a better stock weld.) Also not a huge fan of the Harris-style bipods - too flimsy. The old C3A1-style Versa-pods have their own hangups, but they're practically bombproof.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jun 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> ...and he's using an MG-style hold...



Good eye, and yes correct.

I had a long talk about different shooting positions with the WMO I work with who has won just about every shooting competition ever at one point or another, and the way he explained it, your offhand should be the third point of contact under the butt so it almost makes a tripod.  That way you can just make minute adjustments with that hand instead of having to move your whole body.

With the MG hold it's purely to stop the thing from jumping around, but that wouldn't be a problem with a sharpshooter rifle on rapid rate even if 7.62.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jun 2010)

I put the Magpul ACS on my personal SR-25 EMC.

 It has a better locking system and a friction lock - so it actually works when shooting in the prone, and can adjust for different length requirements.

Ft. Benning did a stock test for a collapsible modification on the M110, and they chose the Magpul ACS as their recommended stock for that.
  We submitted our M110 SASS with Magpul ACS for a recent foreign trail, and the LMT gun had the SOPMOD and the users found it collapsed on them when shooting prone.


The actual Parker Hale bipod is a heavy bitch, robust yes, but very heavy.

The Versa-Pod is a pot metal POS, I've broken a number of them, and while I don't think the Harris is ideal, its probably the best option for thse guns.   Plus we've sent over 5k of them on Mk11's and M110's to the US Mil and have yet to have any major issues.


----------



## Big Red (12 Jun 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> Getting nitpicky, I know, but not a big fan of the typical AR-style stocks when shooting bipod. Have a tendency to hit the latch with the supporting hand, dumb thing collapses at inopportune moments, even though this guy's is fully collapsed already, and he's using an MG-style hold (probably for that reason, and/or to get a better stock weld.) Also not a huge fan of the Harris-style bipods - too flimsy. The old C3A1-style Versa-pods have their own hangups, but they're practically bombproof.



Most of newer AR stocks have a locking mechanism to avoid being accidentally collapsed. The LMT SOPMOD does not, so I put some rubber bands around the stock and lever to keep extra tension on it.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jun 2010)

Its the location on the SOPMOD and other M4/CAR type stocks that causes the issues.

 Shooting prone off a bipod with those stocks and you have three choices, putting Mr. Hand so it eats the latch during recoil, Mr Hand sits on the latch and you hope it does not collapse (LAV had that happen on the M110A1 when I was in Bragg with him - which was our last straw on the SOPMOD for that role) or doing what the Brit is doing above, which is not ideal.

Even your "Ranger' band on the stock is not going to stop it.

The SOPMOD is fine on an M4 or Mk18 (though heavy) but its not ideal on a prone use gun.  

I end up running CTR's on light guns, and the ACS on the heavier ones.

 Plus unlike the SOPMOD, you can actually take batteries out of the stock without removing the stock from the gun...


----------



## Illegio (12 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I had a long talk about different shooting positions with the WMO I work with who has won just about every shooting competition ever at one point or another, and the way he explained it, your offhand should be the third point of contact under the butt so it almost makes a tripod.  That way you can just make minute adjustments with that hand instead of having to move your whole body.



Yes, this is true. It works best when you have a sand-sock or something that you can rest the butt on as well. With the sand-sock, you can then make minute changes in elevation simply by squeezing the sock with your supporting hand, and it also helps manage the effects of your breathing by allowing the butt to rest on a firm point of contact with the ground, instead of just your shoulder.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The actual Parker Hale bipod is a heavy *****, robust yes, but very heavy.
> 
> The Versa-Pod is a pot metal POS, I've broken a number of them...



Personal preference, then. Even though the .338s come with the Harris bipod we have (much to the great annoyance of the unit weapons techs) cannibalized a few of the P-Hs from worn-out C3s. I think it boils down to differences in deployment, too. For instance, crawling around in the sticks with a heavy, high-powered rifle favours the P-H because of its robustness and because there are fewer exposed workings (like the Harris springs) to catch on vegetation. For someone running around firing from more improvised positions with a lower-powered round, perhaps the Harris is a better choice. My preference for the handstop does not really carry over, considering that it would be very difficult to fire from the Hawkins with a 20 rd. mag sticking out of your gun.

I wasn't aware that there was such a difference in quality between the Versa-Pods and the old P-H bipods, though. I'm glad you mentioned that.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Jun 2010)

Speaking of the L129A1 the latest from the British MODUK:



> Royal Marines are first to use new Sharpshooter rifle in Helmand
> 
> The first new infantry combat rifle to be issued to troops for more than 20 years has arrived in Afghanistan and is being used by Royal Marines from 40 Commando.
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## KevinB (21 Jun 2010)

The US Army will be releasing a 7.62 SDM requirement in the near future.
  They are basing it off the Arms Room concept in that the soldier will likley also have a M4 issued, and the unit will be able to chose to deploy the SDM systems or the M4's.

 SOCOM also had a 16" 7.62mm System requirement, one of their elements has recently concluded a very rigorous testing, run by an independant test facility as well as internal and operation deployment, and that testing is being looked as a benchmark for a 16" System.
  We pured a lot of heart and soul into our Battle Rifle upgrade program and we are happy with the results.  Last week however Uk MoD asked us why we did not submit our M110 Carbine/SR-25 EMC into their SS program, and while disappointed understood that keeping it unvield prior to testing down here was paramount for us.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2010)

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayLandmarkBPerArvidsson.pdf

interesting read...


----------



## Illegio (24 Jun 2010)

Interesting indeed, although the crux of the presentation seems to be, "If you weren't such crappy shots, maybe you'd be better at killing what you're shooting at, so go train more." The other conclusion seems to be that in the 0 - 300m range, the differences in (SS109) 5.56mm performance characteristics between carbine-length and rifle-length are so small as to be negligible.

The charts on muzzle velocity, trajectory, etc... between the 14.5" and 20" 5.56mm are interesting, but 5.56 is a light round... My big question is what, if any, great difference would there be in average dispersion (group size) between the rifle and carbine platforms? Not directly related, but I'd like to see similar performance comparison charts for carbine and rifle platforms running 7.62mm.

I don't like the allusion that 300m is long range. Just because you feel the need to engage things at that range with a .50 HMG doesn't make it some vast distance, so don't use that as an argument for better training when there are more solid premises to stand on. That said, I am always in favour of more training, but it just seemed like a silly way to argue for it.


----------



## KevinB (24 Jun 2010)

For interest sake, both our 16" and 20" 7.62mm guns are are typically subMOA out to 500m, by 800m the 16" gun is around 1.25MOA, and the 20" is around 1 MOA.

With M118LR


----------



## SeanNewman (25 Jun 2010)

Kevin, off topic here, but looking at the photo of your rifle again I notice how relatively far forward your optic is.  

I know you have the full Picatinny top, but I don't even think that would fit on a current C7A2 because the front of it would be over the hand guard (or at least the ring).

Is that the actual spot you find it comfortable to shoot it at?  I know that some shooters like to really tuck their head forward, but is that the reason or do you just like it that far for eye relief?


----------



## KevinB (25 Jun 2010)

Its more a point of balance issue.  I have not done a lot of shooting with that optic, but my Leupold CQBSS was relinquished by to a KAC gun, not Kevin's personal gun  :'( 
  I have a NF 2.5-10x that may need to go on that gun and put the Aimpoint back on one of my 5.56mm guns.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2010)

Two shooters, 4 x 5 rd group avergaes at 800m for each shooter...

M110 Carbine 16" 7.62mm NATO

AGR-inches
AGR-MOA

C. /M118 U.S. Army Ammunition
4.924"
0.538

C. /167gr Lapua Ammunition
5.112"
0.558

C. /170gr Lapua Ammunition
5.47"
0.597

C. /185gr Lapua Ammunition
4.520"
0.493





B. /M118 U.S. Army Ammunition
3.992"
0.436

B. /167gr Lapua Ammunition
4.843"
0.529

B. /170gr Lapua Ammunition
6.226"
0.68

B. /185gr Lapua Ammunition
4.056"
0.443


----------



## KevinB (26 Jul 2010)

Petamocto - your PM box is full


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Aug 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Petamocto - your PM box is full



Good to go.


----------



## witchdoctor (14 Sep 2010)

So here's my idea for a DM rifle. I don't think anyone mentioned this yet but feel free to correct me if someone did. Okay so we start with an FNC1 (one of my favorite service rifles of all time). Shorten the barrel a bit but nothing crazy (16 to 18in). Maybe even a heavy match barrel. Then outfit it with some modern furniture such as the after market stuff they sell for the SA58.  That will give you all the accessory rails your heart could desire and give it a modern feel and function. Don't forget the folding stock. We could throw on a folding forward grip to help out in case we are doing a little CQB and a bipod for those long shots. We had a scope mount for it as I recall, I think it was mostly for the old starlight but I think it could be used for something newer such as an ACOG, aimpoint or a full sniper scope. Can you tell I miss my FN!!!


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2010)

Easilier said than done.

1) FN's are out of the inventory
A) Weapons Tech's don't learn FN anymore
B) Shooters are not trained on them anymore
2) FN's are not the easiest to make accurate or reliable in shorter systems.
3) Vertical Grips are passe - they snag on all sort of stuff in CQB
4) Its a legacy item let it go...


A 7.62mm 16" SR-25 type system, (I am a fan of our stuff, but regardless anything like it will be easier to work on than a FAL or M-14 type setup), will asnwer the mail in a easier to employ, easier to train, and easier to maintain system.


----------



## SeanNewman (14 Sep 2010)

I concur with Kevin.

The proponents will state that we used them for decades and they fired 7.62 accurately so it should be easy to go back to them, but there are just too many reasons not to use them.

What you're proposing something like taking an old Dodge Challenger and trying to retrofit it in order to work with today's optics, when you could just buy a new Challenger that's made with modern electronics, airbags, etc.

The F1 was a great rifle for its day, but if you can have a rifle that weighs less, offers more, and is closer to what the troops are learning with the C7, it would be wrong not to give them that.


----------



## witchdoctor (14 Sep 2010)

My thought was since the Americans seem to have had a fair bit of success by dusting off their M-14s and giving them a 21st century upgrade, then why can't we do it with the FN. As far as making them accurate and reliable, I'm guessing I'm the only guy on here that thinks the FN had the C7 beat in both categories? And that's with the very well worn barrels my old reserve unit had. I still can shoot perfect scores with the C7 (When I say this please keep in mind they won't let us shoot higher than PWT1), but the grouping we could pull off with the FN were far tighter, and at longer ranges. They might not be current inventory, but my guess is that we probably have a ton of unused FN's in storage (Hmmm they'd have new barrels too then), all packed in grease just begging to be played with. At least that was the case for a certain other weapon they recently pulled out of storage not long ago. No offence to Kevin, but I think you might be slightly biased to your company's product. (I guess I'm a little biased to LOL) I'm personally not sold on an AR holding up to that kinda abuse from a .308 round. I had a personally owned Colt HB Sporter in .223/5.56 a couple of years ago. I did not put anywhere near the amount of ammo through it that the military would. Anyway it was showing significant wear in a fairly short amount of time. Even just on the range with the C7, we've seen significant failures and stoppages. That's just on the range. I can't imagine what the guns that see combat must be like. IMHO The FN is battle proven in dozens of countries in hundreds of conflicts all over the world. If we had some stock in storage to play with it would save tons of money, from having to buy new rifles. Plus we wouldn't have to go through timely trials to acquire it. I'm sure we still have lots of guys still in that can teach the FN to the younglings. Hell we can probably still dig up the old Pams too. That being said if we didn't have any war stock left laying around. I'd like to see what some of the offerings from H&K or Sig could do in trials against the AR type rifles like your SR25  8) If it does go to trials do you need any volunteers to shoot? I know Gagetown like the back of my hand and could probably drive their with my eyes closed!!!


----------



## chrisf (14 Sep 2010)

witchdoctor said:
			
		

> My thought was since the Americans seem to have had a fair bit of success by dusting off their M-14s and giving them a 21st century upgrade, then why can't we do it with the FN.



BECAUSE THE FNs ARE GONE! DISPOSED OR DESTROYED! THEY AREN'T COLLECTING DUST! THERE IS NO DUST TO DUST OFF! THEY ARE GONE!

(Sorry to shout, but it seemed appropriate)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2010)

witchdoctor said:
			
		

> They might not be current inventory, but my guess is that we probably have a ton of unused FN's in storage (Hmmm they'd have new barrels too then), all packed in grease just begging to be played with. At least that was the case for a certain other weapon they recently pulled out of storage not long ago.



The effective stock of FNs were not very well taken care of. They rusted and were ALL chopped and smelted. Except for a few museums pieces and the like. There are none left.




			
				witchdoctor said:
			
		

> IMHO The FN is battle proven in dozens of countries in hundreds of conflicts all over the world.



As is the AR system.



			
				witchdoctor said:
			
		

> I'm personally not sold on an AR holding up to that kinda abuse from a .308 round. I had a personally owned Colt HB Sporter in .223/5.56 a couple of years ago. I did not put anywhere near the amount of ammo through it that the military would. Anyway it was showing significant wear in a fairly short amount of time.



You must have had a real lemon then. I've have owned and built several AR variants and had thousands of rounds put through some with no ill effects or undue wear.



			
				witchdoctor said:
			
		

> Even just on the range with the C7, we've seen significant failures and stoppages. That's just on the range. I can't imagine what the guns that see combat must be like.



Again, with extensive range time, I've seen the odd FTF or FTE. Most time it was the nut on the butt, not the equipment. Certainly no more so than any other weapon system I've been involved with.


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2010)

The M-14 is not exactly doing a stellar job.
  Lot so problems have cropped up - and while they have refurbed and issued 5,000 of them, it is a stop gas until a new DMR system is picked and funded.

I'm not sure where your getting stoppage numbers from, but statistically the C7/M16 FOW runs rings around others.
 Barring rather skewed dust tests.

I'd love to see full an open competition, as we have won pretty much everything we enter against the competition.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Sep 2010)

Would getting UK or Australian/NZ FNs be an option or did they destroy their FALs like we did?


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2010)

The Uk adopted the LMT MWS (we did not compete).


----------



## Matt_Fisher (21 Sep 2010)

As Kevin mentioned, if we're looking for a truly role spcific Designated Marksman/Sharpshooter type weapons system, the FN-FAL isn't really the best candidate out there.  While it is 7.62, the manufacturing tolerances and operating system don't produce the best platform for extremely accurate fire.  Piston systems built on weapons that have looser manufacturing tolerances such as that on the FN-FAL generally produce more 'yaw' type recoil forces which make it harder for the shooter to control the weapon during the firing cycle, resulting in less accurate aimed shots, and can also be difficult to maintain a zero with optics.  

A direct impingement system like the AR-15/M16/C7 has the recoil forces more in line with the bore and result in a more accurate aimed shot.  Given that a DMR/SS isn't likely to be firing large amounts of automatic fire, the issue of stoppages due to excessive carbon buildup isn't likely to be that great.  

The technology has moved forward and better systems that are more suitable are out there for use in a DMR/SS role.


----------

