3 ms·

USMC OIF vet here. A lot of great comments here but most appear to be missing one key idea: the primary purpose of the infantry rifle is not to kill, it is to s

USMC OIF vet here. A lot of great comments here but most appear to be missing one key idea: the primary purpose of the infantry rifle is not to kill, it is to suppress. When infantry tactics are properly executed, irrespective of clime and place, most of the actual killing will be done by belt-fed weapons (machine guns such as the M249, M240, MK48) and high explosives (hand grenades, mortars, artillery). If you were to make an analogy to boxing, the M4/M16 is the infantry squad's jab, and machine guns and grenades are its power punches. The point of suppression is to keep the enemy's head down so that you can both close with him and force him into geometries that make it easier to kill him with more powerful weapons. It is true that a 5.56mm round does not have a lot of stopping power, but it is designed for point-target accuracy up to 600 meters, and a well-maintained M4 with good optics can put rounds through a window (eg, suppress the enemy) at 800 meters. It is also important to note that a 5.56mm NATO round weighs about a third as much as a 7.62mm NATO round; my kit in OIF was about 100 lbs including body armor and would have been around 120 had I been carrying a rifle chambered for 7.62 and the same number of rounds. Also, another important thing to note about stopping power is that anything worth shooting once is worth shooting many times. Stopping power definitely matters when we're talking about sniper rifles, less so for an infantryman's primary weapons system. With all that said, the M4 is not a great weapon for reasons others have enumerated in these comments. I agree that the HK416 is a beautiful rifle and barring the development of something better should be the primary weapons system for the infantry rifleman, but the procurement / acquisition system is completely screwed up so I'm not holding my breath waiting for that one to happen.

hga 12y ago
"the primary purpose of the infantry rifle is not to kill, it is to suppress" Isn't this a chicken and egg issue? After WWII, where the snide might note that the only country employing such infantry rifles lost (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 and I know it was not for that reason, and that the StG 44 was not evolved for the mission, e.g. no straight line recoil), first the Soviets adopted this concept (I gather after experience with a submachine gun and such tactics), and then a purely political decision forced the AR-15 and 5.56x45 on our Army and Marines (the Air Force loved it for guarding their planes, very much not the same mission). IF we had a better cartridge (but certainly not 7.62 NATO, including for the reasons you cite), and more emphasis on individual marksmanship, might tactics shift a bit? Not a lot, I understand the concept (to the extent someone who's eyesight kept him out of the military might), I just think we went too far with it. Especially since a fair amount of this was motivated by fraudulent research (SLA Marshall). Let me also bring up the issue of our past, current and no doubt future "dirty" wars: rifles are potentially more discriminating than those more powerful weapons, so potentially less "collateral damage" and harm to our own. Then there's the morale issue: how many of our men trust their rifle to save their lives when they're depending entirely on it? I've heard way too many accounts, including forca's on this page, about 5.56x45's lack of stopping power, and seem my comments on Martin Fackler's elucidation of how it works, or doesn't. Then again, and echoing all of our comments on the completely screwed up procurement system, the failures to stop he cited would be less common with 20 inch barrel M16s instead of "Made By Colt" 14.5 inch barrel M4s. And because of that screwed up system, and $$$, this discussion is academic at this time, we should have done the right thing in the '50s :-(.
- leroy_masochist 12y ago
  It's not really a chicken / egg issue, and the tactical logic of fire and maneuver long predates WWII. Yes, the StG 44 was a revolutionary weapon and certainly influenced the AK and Stoner designs, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that it influenced tactics per se. FWIW, the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised that wounding Soviet soldiers would be a better way of slowing their advance across the Fulda Gap than would killing a similar number. With regard to SLAM being a fraud -- there is indeed debate as to whether his stats about what % of men in WWII fired their weapons are accurate. However, to the extent that any of SLAM's writings influenced the rollout of the M16, it was Soldier's Load, the TLDR version of which is, "our gear is too heavy". He had a point there, and we shouldn't ignore the significance of the 5.56mm round's light weight, and not just for the M16. Being able to carry 5 drums of SAW ammo on patrol can come in handy.
  - hga 12y ago
    "the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised...." The story you've heard is dead wrong on many particulars: The '50s "generals" were fixated on creating 7.62 NATO and the M14 upgrade of the M1 Garand (and BTW it was another TFX/JSF one long arm to do everything semi-debacle). The AR-10 (the parent of the AR-15 that used 7.62 NATO) was part of the "competition" that somehow ended up selecting the Army's very own M14, through expedients like replacing screws and/or pins with coil springs while the rifles where in the custody of the Army. An early limited use of the AR-15 in Vietnam produced outsized reports of extreme stopping power and lethality, explained by the very high velocity of the the 55 grain bullets of the time (3,250 fps in something I just looked up, which matches my memory). From my research, before the civilians in the DoD forced it on the Army and Marines, mere wounding was never a selling point, that sounds more like excuses after real experiences showed how bad it really was. SLAM was a fraud, his schedule could not have produced the data he claimed to have collected then, a scholar reviewed his appointments calendar and noticed the discrepancy. It appears he did a limited number of bullshitting sessions and pulled his results out of his ass. Read e.g. the completely unrelated Hackworth About Face for a bit more on his feet of clay, in Vietnam. My counterpoint to the soldier's load argument is that the tradeoff went too far, e.g. I've read some accounts of SAW operators who really wished the round was more effective. I submit there's a case to be made for fewer but more effective rounds, but not battle rifle level. E.g. would 3-4 more effective drums do as well or better? Have to run, maybe more later.

hga 12y ago

"the primary purpose of the infantry rifle is not to kill, it is to suppress" Isn't this a chicken and egg issue? After WWII, where the snide might note that the only country employing such infantry rifles lost (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 and I know it was not for that reason, and that the StG 44 was not evolved for the mission, e.g. no straight line recoil), first the Soviets adopted this concept (I gather after experience with a submachine gun and such tactics), and then a purely political decision forced the AR-15 and 5.56x45 on our Army and Marines (the Air Force loved it for guarding their planes, very much not the same mission). IF we had a better cartridge (but certainly not 7.62 NATO, including for the reasons you cite), and more emphasis on individual marksmanship, might tactics shift a bit? Not a lot, I understand the concept (to the extent someone who's eyesight kept him out of the military might), I just think we went too far with it. Especially since a fair amount of this was motivated by fraudulent research (SLA Marshall). Let me also bring up the issue of our past, current and no doubt future "dirty" wars: rifles are potentially more discriminating than those more powerful weapons, so potentially less "collateral damage" and harm to our own. Then there's the morale issue: how many of our men trust their rifle to save their lives when they're depending entirely on it? I've heard way too many accounts, including forca's on this page, about 5.56x45's lack of stopping power, and seem my comments on Martin Fackler's elucidation of how it works, or doesn't. Then again, and echoing all of our comments on the completely screwed up procurement system, the failures to stop he cited would be less common with 20 inch barrel M16s instead of "Made By Colt" 14.5 inch barrel M4s. And because of that screwed up system, and $$$, this discussion is academic at this time, we should have done the right thing in the '50s :-(.

leroy_masochist 12y ago
It's not really a chicken / egg issue, and the tactical logic of fire and maneuver long predates WWII. Yes, the StG 44 was a revolutionary weapon and certainly influenced the AK and Stoner designs, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that it influenced tactics per se. FWIW, the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised that wounding Soviet soldiers would be a better way of slowing their advance across the Fulda Gap than would killing a similar number. With regard to SLAM being a fraud -- there is indeed debate as to whether his stats about what % of men in WWII fired their weapons are accurate. However, to the extent that any of SLAM's writings influenced the rollout of the M16, it was Soldier's Load, the TLDR version of which is, "our gear is too heavy". He had a point there, and we shouldn't ignore the significance of the 5.56mm round's light weight, and not just for the M16. Being able to carry 5 drums of SAW ammo on patrol can come in handy.
- hga 12y ago
  "the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised...." The story you've heard is dead wrong on many particulars: The '50s "generals" were fixated on creating 7.62 NATO and the M14 upgrade of the M1 Garand (and BTW it was another TFX/JSF one long arm to do everything semi-debacle). The AR-10 (the parent of the AR-15 that used 7.62 NATO) was part of the "competition" that somehow ended up selecting the Army's very own M14, through expedients like replacing screws and/or pins with coil springs while the rifles where in the custody of the Army. An early limited use of the AR-15 in Vietnam produced outsized reports of extreme stopping power and lethality, explained by the very high velocity of the the 55 grain bullets of the time (3,250 fps in something I just looked up, which matches my memory). From my research, before the civilians in the DoD forced it on the Army and Marines, mere wounding was never a selling point, that sounds more like excuses after real experiences showed how bad it really was. SLAM was a fraud, his schedule could not have produced the data he claimed to have collected then, a scholar reviewed his appointments calendar and noticed the discrepancy. It appears he did a limited number of bullshitting sessions and pulled his results out of his ass. Read e.g. the completely unrelated Hackworth About Face for a bit more on his feet of clay, in Vietnam. My counterpoint to the soldier's load argument is that the tradeoff went too far, e.g. I've read some accounts of SAW operators who really wished the round was more effective. I submit there's a case to be made for fewer but more effective rounds, but not battle rifle level. E.g. would 3-4 more effective drums do as well or better? Have to run, maybe more later.