4 ms·

USMC, 86-94. As an NCO, I was issued a handgun because my MOS called for it. The Corps has different doctrine than the Army. Issuing a handgun makes plenty of s

USMC, 86-94. As an NCO, I was issued a handgun because my MOS called for it. The Corps has different doctrine than the Army. Issuing a handgun makes plenty of sense in certain environments. I did lots of "jungle time", as it were, so our mission was different. Marines do many different things than the Army. Loads of patrols for drug interdiction, for example. Never saw American soldiers on these. Ditto patrolling in PI for insurgents. Everyone armed to the teeth for these. When you're in Thailand or the PI and you're miles from re-supply and helos cannot see you for the canopy, you are humping tons of crap that you normally wouldn't, although my base loadout always included a handgun, no matter the environment. Also please remember that back when I was in, and even now, the Corps gets the crappy end of the stick where gear is concerned. Most of our stuff was Army hand-me-downs. The Corps uses Blue, not Green dollars. All of our vehicles were prior Navy or Army. Quite a few of our weapons were also. They were all retrofitted with new parts (spring kits, etc.), but we had largely older gear. We were still using the AN/PRC-77 radios back then, which is a Vietnam-era radio kit. Editing to answer forgotten point: The new 6MM AR-pattern rifles weigh no more than their 5.56 counterparts empty, and very little difference loaded. The size and weight of the ammo is likewise negligible. These are being tested by the US at the moment in certain theaters and are well liked. They are being considered as DM rifles, which makes perfect sense. The US is taking a page out of Russia's book to have a DM per squad. This should have been done ages ago. For little weight gain, you add serious capability. The 6MM is no slouch, and has the best ballistic coefficient of any round in the inventory. The facts are out there to read. It's all very interesting.

jki275 8y ago
Ok, so you have no relevant modern experience to draw from. 94 was a generation and four wars ago. I'm well aware of the USMC issues and funding. Yes, the 6mm rifles are the same pattern, I should have clarified that I was talking about M14s in that comment, the difference is that NATO 5.56 is logistically supported world-wide by both us and our NATO allies. Realistically there are only two cartridges for infantry use worldwide -- 5.56 and 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has many issues that make it unsuitable for our uses, and 5.56 is the cartridge like it or not. A huge amount of R&D has taken place in the 5.56 world since 94, and the MK262 and others address all of the issues you've raised with it except for penetration of heavy cover, which is not generally relevant. The US has used DMs for decades, using M14s or even other weapons. Replacing a DM weapon with another weapon is not what you have been arguing for, and is not relevant to the discussion of general purpose infantry weapon issue, which will essentially always be 5.56 until there is some impetus for all of NATO to change. Given the current state of that world, that's not likely to ever happen.
- stirfrykitty 8y ago
  I'm well aware of the advances. However, I can tell you that 6mm or .30 trumps 5.56 every single time w/o exception and the military is actually looking to replace the 5.56 with a 6mm cartridge. 5.56 is a weak performer. There are myriad reports of troops having to double/triple tap enemy combatants to get them down. This is a waste of ammo and saps faith in their own gear. 6mm or.30 doesn't tend to have this issue. The energy dump is much, much more. A .243 or 6.5 has more energy at 500 than a 5.56 does at 100 and with a barely-noticeable recoil difference, especially in a gas-operated platform. The M-14 is on the way out as a DM rifle anyway in favor of newer platforms like the HK417 or FN MK20. We can disagree all day long, but ballistics don't lie. The 5.56 is barely an intermediate round. It's still a .22 caliber round with all the inherent faults. The Corps referred to it as a "poodle shooter" when I served. It wasn't well liked. Ditto the myriads of soldiers I know who share a disdain for it. I find it interesting that of all the people I know who are civilian shooters who were in the military in combat MOSs and who use an MSR of some type, none are in 5.56. They are either in .243, 6.5. or 7.62. You can guess why. They don't trust the 5.56 round other than for nuisance animals like coyotes. I've seen coyotes take 5.56 rounds center mass behind either leg and limp off to die in the bush. Never seen or had this happen to me or guys I hunt with using a .243, 6.5, or 7.62. They are DRT. And we don't hunt with FMJ. If a superior (than issue) round being used on coyotes is suspect on occasion, you can imagine the troops who actually need decent rounds are hungry for something that actually performs as it should. 5.56 has been shown to be weak and ineffective except in a crew-served hail of rounds scenario or extremely close in. 6mm/.30 allows troops to keep the enemy further out there while still taking them down. Military is working to get off the 5.56... https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-army-556mm-rifle-round-replacement.html https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-ar... https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-armys-saw-and-m4-replacements-will-both-fire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/ https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-army...
  - jki275 8y ago
    You're using so much of the silly non-shooter/non-military buzzwords that I'm pretty sure you've never carried a weapon or spent a single day on active duty. I'm done with this discussion, as almost everything you're posting is just made up absurdity at this point. 5.56 has been used to great effect since the Vietnam war. It's still in use by the entire NATO alliance and will likely be the cartridge of choice there for the next forty years as well.

jki275 8y ago

Ok, so you have no relevant modern experience to draw from. 94 was a generation and four wars ago. I'm well aware of the USMC issues and funding. Yes, the 6mm rifles are the same pattern, I should have clarified that I was talking about M14s in that comment, the difference is that NATO 5.56 is logistically supported world-wide by both us and our NATO allies. Realistically there are only two cartridges for infantry use worldwide -- 5.56 and 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has many issues that make it unsuitable for our uses, and 5.56 is the cartridge like it or not. A huge amount of R&D has taken place in the 5.56 world since 94, and the MK262 and others address all of the issues you've raised with it except for penetration of heavy cover, which is not generally relevant. The US has used DMs for decades, using M14s or even other weapons. Replacing a DM weapon with another weapon is not what you have been arguing for, and is not relevant to the discussion of general purpose infantry weapon issue, which will essentially always be 5.56 until there is some impetus for all of NATO to change. Given the current state of that world, that's not likely to ever happen.

stirfrykitty 8y ago
I'm well aware of the advances. However, I can tell you that 6mm or .30 trumps 5.56 every single time w/o exception and the military is actually looking to replace the 5.56 with a 6mm cartridge. 5.56 is a weak performer. There are myriad reports of troops having to double/triple tap enemy combatants to get them down. This is a waste of ammo and saps faith in their own gear. 6mm or.30 doesn't tend to have this issue. The energy dump is much, much more. A .243 or 6.5 has more energy at 500 than a 5.56 does at 100 and with a barely-noticeable recoil difference, especially in a gas-operated platform. The M-14 is on the way out as a DM rifle anyway in favor of newer platforms like the HK417 or FN MK20. We can disagree all day long, but ballistics don't lie. The 5.56 is barely an intermediate round. It's still a .22 caliber round with all the inherent faults. The Corps referred to it as a "poodle shooter" when I served. It wasn't well liked. Ditto the myriads of soldiers I know who share a disdain for it. I find it interesting that of all the people I know who are civilian shooters who were in the military in combat MOSs and who use an MSR of some type, none are in 5.56. They are either in .243, 6.5. or 7.62. You can guess why. They don't trust the 5.56 round other than for nuisance animals like coyotes. I've seen coyotes take 5.56 rounds center mass behind either leg and limp off to die in the bush. Never seen or had this happen to me or guys I hunt with using a .243, 6.5, or 7.62. They are DRT. And we don't hunt with FMJ. If a superior (than issue) round being used on coyotes is suspect on occasion, you can imagine the troops who actually need decent rounds are hungry for something that actually performs as it should. 5.56 has been shown to be weak and ineffective except in a crew-served hail of rounds scenario or extremely close in. 6mm/.30 allows troops to keep the enemy further out there while still taking them down. Military is working to get off the 5.56... https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-army-556mm-rifle-round-replacement.html https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-ar... https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-armys-saw-and-m4-replacements-will-both-fire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/ https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-army...
- jki275 8y ago
  You're using so much of the silly non-shooter/non-military buzzwords that I'm pretty sure you've never carried a weapon or spent a single day on active duty. I'm done with this discussion, as almost everything you're posting is just made up absurdity at this point. 5.56 has been used to great effect since the Vietnam war. It's still in use by the entire NATO alliance and will likely be the cartridge of choice there for the next forty years as well.