Allah's Waiting Room..........in Ole Fashioned Marine Speak

Source?
Geeze, 20 years of reading SOF and Ezell's Firearms of the world, etc, etc, etc.
Im sorry, I cant tell you offhand.
I remember the range and bolt action vs semiauto info came out right after the army adopted the MILES equipment for training.

Two infantry squads from the same unit were fitted with MILES.
One squad was given WW1 era weapons. (Springfiled rifles and a Maxim, I think)
The other squad carried current equipment. (which in the 80s, I guess was 16s and 60s)

The idea was that the WW1 equipped soldiers would simulate the enemy in third world countries , I guess.
The results of the FX were very surprising to the Army. The teams ended up with about a 2% difference in their final kills to shots fired ratio.

Not nearly enough of a difference to justify 60 years of firearms advances.
The Springfirld 06 guys shot and killed the M16 guys 98% as well as the M16 guys shot and killed the 06 guys.
Of course, MILES equipment doesnt count injury or death, just hits to the head or chest.

They had a huge base to work in, plenty of range. They just didnt see each other until they were within 300 yards.
then, they engaged as normal.
The thing is, a loaded gun, whether semi, full auto or single shot fires the same ONCE, and after that comes the difference. (bolt action vs semi auto)
But if you get hit with the first bullet, there aint no difference.

The old 06's may have been more accurate too, but MILES shoots a laser and thats perfectly straight, so ballistics arent really counted...
 
Dave,
I don't have a Beretta in front of me, nor have handled one for several years. There was an article on the handgun and this weakness, and I can't remember whether it appeared in American Rifleman or a Shooting Times. I'm certain I've not explained myself well. This is not a weakness all other semi auto's share.



munk
 
The teams ended up with about a 2% difference in their final kills to shots fired ratio.
Click to expand...

Danny, if that's an accurate statement, then it does *not* show "Springfirld 06 guys shot and killed the M16 guys 98% as well as the M16 guys shot and killed the 06 guys"- unless you're saying that there were a similar number of shots fired- otherwise, if
Team one fires 300 rounds, and
Team two fires 100 rounds:
if team one scores 150 kills, and
team two scores 49 kills, there would indeed be "about a 2% differenc in kills to shots fired ratio", but team one would still have a great advantage over team two.

I definitely agree that accurate first shots count, but geez.

MILES gear may be a great aid, but in my experience, it tends to get knocked off-kilter, so I was okay with using paintballs instead of MILES this week. Yeah, you have another whole set of problems, but I hate MILES.

John
 
ok
specter I never said 20 years of reading "statistics for engineers"
(i probably should have, come to think of it)
I said I read SOF, you know Kokalis and brown?

anyhow, I remember a final number of 2% difference in the scores between teams, a number the Army considered significantly insignificant.
Basically, they concluded that it was not really the weapons that determined success on the battlefield, it was training and experience.
They further concluded that MILES was a very good idea because it provided them with a new and better way to train, which they wanted to do more of.

Moral of the story: Training and preparation are the true weapons of war.
 
Wasn't trying to piss you off, Danny, sorry.

Can't really speak for the engineers, but I do know a little about historical research methods. Saying the scores were very close is much different than mentioning a similar kills to shots fired scenario: as I pointed out, one team could have fired a vastly greater number of rounds, and with a similar kills to shots fired ratio, the team firing more rounds would win.

munk, the Federov Automat in 1916 was the first assault rifle actually issued to troops (there was one AR previously made, but never distributed), thus my labeling the Sturmgewher "the world's first widely distributed assault rifle".
 
Acting as support element to cover the assault...
FTXsuppress.jpg
 
Pretty cool John. Sure is different than the days they gave us a BB gun and a metal disc to throw in the air. Instinct shooting they called it.:)

I found the photos, "slides" that is. It brought back memories. I sure got pumped. I tried showing my wife the "hanging" tree with some poor slip knots. She looked, cussed me and wouldn't look at any other slides. :D There never was mercy or remorse. How the hell did we loose that war?

I got to get regular "shots" made of some of this stuff. You should get a kick out of it. I don't think anything changes in the service. Just the names and faces maybe.
 
munk, the Federov Automat in 1916 was the first assault rifle actually issued to troops (there was one AR previously made, but never distributed), thus my labeling the Sturmgewher "the world's first widely distributed assault rifle".>>>>>>>>>> Spectre


When I was thirty I became a student of the Gun. I'd been researching gun control, and quickly saw there was a problem with the anti gun position. I read more. I eventually became a reloader and ballistic nin com poop. I fell asleep with Sierra bullet trajectories in front of my eyes. Never a encyclopedia, I none the less absorbed a great deal of knowledge about weapons and then contemporary systems.

Enter today- nearly 20 years later. I no longer read up on the latest and have forgotten much of what I used to quote. Young guys like Spectre come by and correct me, leaving me a twisted, bloody, flattened road kill by the side of the information highway, about as worthwhile as a waterlogged Sears and Roebuck catalogue in an outhouse. Instead of a sunny sail cat I'm a sail munk.


It's not too bad, though. I get to read neat stuff. They let me outside everyonce in awhile, too.


munk
 
Oh, you're hurting me, friend. I wouldn't deliberately mangle you on the information superhighway.

Interesting note: the Russian 1916 AR used the Japanese 6.5x50mm round, which was much more suited to the role than the 7.62x54mm round the Russians used at the time. It fired a 139-grain bullet at about 2500 fps from a 31" barrel.

The 7.62x39mm is almost identical in power: a 124-grain bullet at 2400 fps from a 16" barrel.

Yeah, think I'm going to be an ordnance guy...:rolleyes:
 
I like ordnance. You know, I'll spend so much time tweaking a load to get it just right, I kinda hate to send it downrange.... "Oh- there goes another golden missile." In the early days boxes and boxes were fired...in later days each cartridge examined like a fine bottle of aged California wine.

When you love your reloads that much you're in deep.



munk
 
The FA-16 is one of those rifles that I've never shot, nor touched, nor even seen in person, but I know that I want one. Russia's experimental failures are often far more interesting than their successes.

John, I know nothing about the 6.5mm and I'm too lazy to look it up - is the standard loading fairly low pressure?
 
I don't believe Russia's new rifle will ever be available for US civilians, if it's true there are two rounds in the barrel at the same time.



munk
 
From what I remember, the problem they viewed with the XM-8 was that it could not use belted ammunition in the SAW configuration... something which I think is a bad idea anyway. A one-man weapon should be used with magazines, not belts. On a crew served weapon like the M60/M240B weapons, it is fine cause belts can be linked together without a pause in firing. But a 100 round magazine is great at squad level. I want that damned weapon!
 
Spectre said:
the Germans could certainly throw more lead than the Americans.
Click to expand...

Well, that is pretty interesting considering it took them about half the ammo per American KIA with small arms IIRC. I don't think the guns were the issue though - mind games played with your troops may be the biggest "force multiplier."
 
cliff355 said:
Well, that is pretty interesting considering it took them about half the ammo per American KIA with small arms IIRC. I don't think the guns were the issue though - mind games played with your troops may be the biggest "force multiplier."
Click to expand...

Remember, in nearly every battle between the Americans and Germans during WWII, the Germans were the defending force. Keep this in mind when you look at kill ratios and ammunition expended.
 
Dave,

If you think about it, the FA wasn't really a failure...it was just a lot easier to eventually produce another .311 round, so much existing equipment could be used, instead of really cranking out millions of weapons that fired enemy ammunition.

A good quick reference for many cartridges is The Reload Bench. http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/65j.html

I know the cartridge is no powerhouse, but don't have a loading manual to check pressure, and I'm not finding it today. Sorry.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top