cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (01/05/91)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > Looking at TV presentations of the desert landscape, I > wonder if the M16 is the right rifle for the circumstances? > > --henry schaffer n c state univ I remember from the M14/M16 argument during the mid-60's that the mean battle range in Europe was 500 yards; this was the argument for keeping the 7.62 mm NATO-compatible M14. The M1 and M14 are both quite accurate at 500 yards. The M16, on the other hand, is effective out to about 300 yards. I believe that most of the other NATO armies have stayed with the 7.62 mm rifles. The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be (a) greater effective range (b) more reliable in sand/dirt (c) ammo common to M60 MG and other NATO forces. Disadvantages are (a) weight of weapon (b) weight of ammo (c) lower automatic rate of fire. Marines stayed with the M14 after the Army went to M16, but later gave it up sometime in the late 60's, I think. The Marines are still serious about rifle marksmanship, though.
navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov (Don Newcomb) (01/05/91)
From: Don Newcomb <navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov> >Subject: Using the rifle suited to the previous war? First I would like to say that my remarks may sound somewhat strident but are not intended to denigrate the question or it's author. > WWI had trench warfare with positions fairly far apart, and >the .30-'06 was a round well suited to that situation (in the >'03 Springfield, and the later M1 Garand, both battle rifles.) Actually the M1903 Springfield and Cal .30-1906 cartridge were not well suited to trench warfare. The rifle was slow and over- powered for assault on trenches. It had been designed for the classic open field operations of the American West and was intended to replace both rifle for infantry and carbine for cavalry. Many troops abandoned the '03 in favor of the 12 ga. pump shotgun or Winchester M1908 semi-auto sporting rifle for use in the trenches. >The M1 Garand carried over for use in WWII, but for those more >fluid circumstances a rifle more along the lines of the "sturmgewehr" >seemed appropriate so that the M14 was introduced, and it was used >later in Korea and to some extent in Vietnam. The only thing the M14 has in common with the German "Sturmgewher" is the presence of a removable magazine. Most are not selective fire. While the M14 has been used in Korea, it was not introduced until the late 1950s, after the Korean Conflict. >By then the M16 (a true assault rifle) was in use, and so >that is what has been distributed to the troops in the Persian Gulf. I don't know if the semantic debate over whether the M16 is or is not an "assault rifle" has been settled. There are two definitions of "assault rifle". They both begin, "A straight stocked, pistol gripped, magazine fed, selective fire, individual shoulder weapon, firing .....", but then diverge: 1. "an intermediate power cartridge." 2. "a cartridge with terminal balistics similar to a .30-30" The M16 fits #1 but not #2. I do not think that the U.S. military refers to the M16 as an "assault rifle." In any case the semi-auto rifles the press assails as "assault rifles" don't fit either definition. > Looking at TV presentations of the desert landscape, I >wonder if the M16 is the right rifle for the circumstances? Suffice it to say, the M16A2 is probably the best all around service rifle the U.S. has ever fielded. It is as accurate as either the service grade M1 or M14 at ranges to 500 m. and can put a lot more hits on target. The only valid objections I have heard to this rifle are: 1. In very rough service (e.g. paratroops) the adjustable rear sight has been known to be knocked off. 2. The stock won't fold. 3. The rear sight mount is to high for convenient use of optical sights. 4. The U.S. should have sought NATO cooperation rather than introducing the 5.56 unilaterally in the 1960s. (This is more of a historical/political point and the Belgians got the last laugh anyway.) Some of the ridiculous objections I have heard are: 1. The 5.56 mm projectile is subject to large wind deflection at long ranges. (Important to target shooters but if you need long range in combat, get a howitzer or sniper) 2. The 5.56 mm projectile won't penetrate both sides of a _____. (tank, bunker, body armor, helmet, outhouse etc) at 1000 m. (The service rifles of the late 1800 were designed to be used at 1200 m and beyond, but today's rifles are designed to put the most hits on VISIBLE targets with the least tactical load for the soldier.) The soldiers of the last century were walking rifle platforms. (And the rifle was only a convenient handle for the bayonet :-) ) The main weapon of todays 'foot' soldier is a radio, rocket, target designator etc.) The rifle is used for personal defense and security. The only rifle I would trade an M16A2 for is the Swiss SG90. The British Enfield bullpup is also very good. =================================================================== | | | | Donald R. Newcomb | "If I had it to do over again, | | Naval Oceanographic Office | I would not even be a Communist,| | navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov | and if Lenin were alive today, | | (SPAN) OACIS::NAVOCEANO | he would say the same thing..." | | (601) 688-5998 | Todor Zhivkov | | | | ===================================================================
osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (Ron Morgan) (01/07/91)
From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (Ron Morgan) [discussion Nam-era rifles being used in Desert Shield] I've thought about this, myself. The terrain in Saudi Arabia is about as different from Vietnam as you can get. Anyone who has driven through the Death Valley area, for example, knows what I'm talking about. Desert country is BIG. You say, "I'm going to go sit on that rock over yonder," and an hour later, you're still walking towards it. A few words have been posted here about how the M16 is accurate out to 500 yards, etc., but nobody has mentioned that there are darn few shooters out there, if *any*, who can hit a human-sized target 500 yards out with *open sights*. I've been shooting for 30 years, and I know I couldn't. Modern scopes wouldn't have any trouble with the sand. Imagine facing an entire front line of tens of thousands of troops, every single one armed with a flat-shooting rifle and a 4X-12X 'scope. The effectiveness of fire would be simply *staggering*. You wouldn't be able to get within half a mile of them. Comments? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Ron Morgan = National Rifle Association = = osmigo@emx.utexas.edu = Greenpeace = = "Take a friend shooting today" = Amnesty International = =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/07/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >I remember from the M14/M16 argument during the mid-60's that the >mean battle range in Europe was 500 yards... Sure about that? The numbers I have heard for *infantry* combat are an order of magnitude shorter, although my references aren't handy. The results for actual combat heavily favored the short-range M-16 over the rarely-used long-range capability of the M-14. Consider some numbers. Even a high-velocity rifle like the M-16 pushes the bullet out at only about 1000m/s. Ignoring air drag, that means it takes half a second to cover 500m. A man walking at a comfortable pace covers several times his body width in that time. An infantryman in combat, moving irregularly at high speed and exploiting cover, will be almost impossible to hit with an aimed shot at such distances... even if he and his buddies are not shooting back. >I believe that most of the other NATO armies have stayed with >the 7.62 mm rifles. They stayed with 7.62 for a while, since the US switched to 5.56 without consulting them after a concerted campaign to standardize on 7.62, but most of them have followed the US's lead now. >The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be... >... (b) more reliable in sand/dirt ... As (alas) a purely historical/technological note, Stoner's original AR-15, firing its original ammunition, was conspicuously *more* reliable than the M-14 in Army adverse-conditions testing. The same is not true, alas, of the M-16, thanks to the Army's "improvements" in the powder composition. >Disadvantages are ... (c) lower automatic rate of fire. Nobody short of Schwarzenegger can control a 7.62 rifle in automatic fire, which is why almost all 7.62 rifles actually issued to NATO troops were semiauto-only. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
gwh%headcrash.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (01/07/91)
From: gwh%headcrash.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <1991Jan5.021709.27698@cbnews.att.com> cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) writes: >I remember from the M14/M16 argument during the mid-60's that the >mean battle range in Europe was 500 yards; this was the argument >for keeping the 7.62 mm NATO-compatible M14. The M1 and M14 are >both quite accurate at 500 yards. >The M16, on the other hand, is effective out to about 300 yards. Faulty reasoning. For one, you switched from 'accurate' to 'effective' in mid- comparason 8-) ... The problem is that _no_ service rifle is "effective" further than it can be accurately fired. Neither the M-14 or the M-16 nor for that matter a bolt action rifle w/o telescopic sights is 'effective' past 300 meters. You simply can't hit. [not totally true, but most soldiers aren't true marksmen] >I believe that most of the other NATO armies have stayed with >the 7.62 mm rifles. Britan now uses the L85 5.56mm bullpup rifle, which has the added bonus of a low-magnification sighting scope. Germany has the 7.62mm G3 rifle, but is replacing it with a 4.5mm caseless, the G11. The rest of NATO is scattered mostly with Fn variants. >The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be (a) greater >effective range (b) more reliable in sand/dirt (c) ammo common >to M60 MG and other NATO forces. a) see above b) the M-14 has an exposed action. I've never personally doused one with sand, but i doubt it's very good for it. The M-16 is on the other hand enclosed except for a (closable) ejection port. The M-14 may be more reliable inherently but i doubt the sand will but close the reliability gap, if not nullify it. c) The Saudi's use a 5.56mm rifle (Steyr AUG bullpup). We use one, as well as a light MG in that caliber. So do the Israeli's. Everyone in the Gulf either uses a 5.56mm rifle or a 7.62S Russian Kalishnikov. >Marines stayed with the M14 after the Army went to M16, but later >gave it up sometime in the late 60's, I think. The Marines are >still serious about rifle marksmanship, though. They ought to be; it was a Marines group that designed the M-16A2 upgrade. == George William Herbert == ** UNIX ate my last .sig, Waiting for Plan 9! ** == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == ########## I do Naval Architecture, ########### == + Anywhere, at my price. + ==## Spacecraft Design, UNIX Systems Consulting ## == + gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu + == ## RPG writing/development, and lots of other ## == + (415) 849-4853 + == ### random stuff, of course. I'm a JOAT 8-) ###
mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) (01/07/91)
From: Michael Squires <mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> In article <1991Jan5.021828.27885@cbnews.att.com> Don Newcomb <navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov> writes: > >cavalry. Many troops abandoned the '03 in favor of the 12 ga. >pump shotgun or Winchester M1908 semi-auto sporting rifle >for use in the trenches. A friend at college in 1966 who had served with the first Marine ground forces in Vietnam told me that his unit used many captured AK-47's when on patrol and left the M14's back at the base. In one of the famous pictures of the recapture of the citadel at Hue after the Tet offensive it is clear that the weapon being carried by a US soldier going over the top is also an AK-47. -- Mike Squires (mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) 812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 Under construction: mikes@sir-alan.cica.indiana.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/08/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) I wrote: >Nobody short of Schwarzenegger can control a 7.62 rifle in automatic fire, >which is why almost all 7.62 rifles actually issued to NATO troops were >semiauto-only. Wups, turns out I was over-generalizing from local knowledge; at least some of the European armies did issue full-auto 7.62s to the troops. I stand by the comment about the practical usefulness of it, however. The 7.62 cartridge is just too powerful for a full-auto rifle to be very practical. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
cramer@uunet.UU.NET (Clayton Cramer) (01/09/91)
In article <1991Jan5.021709.27698@cbnews.att.com>, cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) writes:
#
#
# From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
# > Looking at TV presentations of the desert landscape, I
# > wonder if the M16 is the right rifle for the circumstances?
# >
# > --henry schaffer n c state univ
#
# I remember from the M14/M16 argument during the mid-60's that the
# mean battle range in Europe was 500 yards; this was the argument
# for keeping the 7.62 mm NATO-compatible M14. The M1 and M14 are
# both quite accurate at 500 yards.
#
# The M16, on the other hand, is effective out to about 300 yards.
The M16A1 was effective out to about 300 yards; the M16A2 with the
1-7 twist rifling and the 63 gr. SS109 cartridge is another matter.
The current USMC Marksmanship Manual asserts that soldiers should
be capable of hitting man-sized targets to 550 meters, and because
of the penetrator core of the SS109 cartridges, it is supposed to
penetrate 1/4" stainless at 500 meters.
I know that *I* would prefer at M14 for long range shooting, but
realistically, most shooting, even in a desert, is probably going
to be ranges of less than 500 yards.
# The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be (a) greater
# effective range (b) more reliable in sand/dirt (c) ammo common
# to M60 MG and other NATO forces.
A number of countries have adopted 5.56mm light machine guns,
just for that reason. I'm not sure if the problems of M16
reliability still exist -- I know that current AR-15s are completely
reliable.
# Disadvantages are (a) weight of weapon (b) weight of ammo (c)
# lower automatic rate of fire.
The USMC Marksmanship manual is definitely emphasizing careful
aimed fire -- they strongly discourage use of automatic fire at
distances greater than 50 meters.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Gun Control: The belief that the government, with its great wisdom and
moral superiority, can be trusted with a monopoly on deadly force.
You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) (01/12/91)
From: voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) In article <1991Jan8.005320.20487@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Wups, turns out I was over-generalizing from local knowledge; at least some >of the European armies did issue full-auto 7.62s to the troops. I stand by >the comment about the practical usefulness of it, however. The 7.62 >cartridge is just too powerful for a full-auto rifle to be very practical. >-- I take exception to this. I am in no way a "Schwartzennager" but I was fairly proficient with my issued firearm: an M60 firing 7.62 cartridges. It is a full auto weapon and we were taught earlyt on to fire 3-5 round bursts quite effectively. Maybe you need to stop watching Arnie movies and try real life? (Nothing personal, Henry; I enjoy your posts. Just had to try and add to the confusion :-)) -- Alan Hepburn "It's what you learn after you know it all National Semiconductor Corp that counts. Santa Clara, Ca - John Wooden mail: alan@spitfire.nsc.com
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (01/14/91)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: [...] I wondered as I watched it how many of those >soldiers would be interested in trading their newfangled weapons in for >some old reliable FN FALs like the British army used before they adopted >the L85s... Huh? The FN used to fail to chamber the round if it got grit in the ejection port. --dave. -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave 72 Abitibi Ave., | Willowdale, Ontario, | Even cannibals don't usually eat their CANADA. 416-223-8968 | friends.
simnet@ssc-vax (Mark R Poulson) (01/17/91)
From: !simnet@ssc-vax (Mark R Poulson) From: Don Newcomb <navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov> >Subject: Using the rifle suited to the previous war? >From a ballistics point of view, I don't think there is a difference that matters between the NATO cartridges. Compare three cartridges, the NATO 7.62 (aka .308 Win), the Soviet 7.62x39 (AK47 round), and the NATO 5.56 (aka .223 Rem and M-16 cartridge). Round Caliber Projectile weight Muzzle Vel ================================================================= 7.62 NATO .308 147gr ~2900 f/s 7.62x39 .310 125gr ~2300 f/s 5.56 NATO .223 62 or 69gr ~3100 f/s There are two important areas to consider ballistically. First, wounds are usualy much more severe when the bullet strikes its target with a velocity greater than 2100 f/s (the speed of sound in water/flesh). Secondly, bullets drop with range. Both of these points are better with high muzzle velocities and high sectional densities (i.e bullets that are heavy in relation to their caliber). If you look at a ballistics table, you can find the remaining velocity at specific ranges up to 500yds and how far the bullet drops if it was zeroed at a specific range. Both the NATO rounds reduce their velocity to the 2100f/s threshold when they have gone 300 yards. At this point, a bigger hole is slightly more effective, but all shocking capability is lost. The 7.62x39 is already close to the 2100f/s threshold at the muzzle. After 100-150 yards, its just a slow 30 caliber... Bullet drop is minimized when the initial velocity is high. Here, the 5.56 NATO is a definite winner to 400 yards. After this range, bullet drop gets very natsy -- especially with the other 2 calibers. For very long ranges, the 7.62 NATO will have slightly less drop because it has the highest sectional density. But when you're getting bullet drops of 50 to 60 inches, a few inches doesn't seem to matter a whole lot! Bullet drop can be compensentated for with the rifle sights, but the shooter must have a very good range estimate (or keep shooting while aiming higher and higher and higher...). To summarize, the weapon I would NOT want in the desert is something firing the 7.62x39 because if its low muzzle velocity and low sectional density. The 7.62 NATO may be slightly superior in well trained hands at very long ranges when compared to the 5.56 NATO, but I feel the other benefits afforded by the 5.56 NATO cartridge are more relevent (you can carry a lot more ammo and in a lighter rifle). Mark ...uw-beaver!ssc-bee!simnet
rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) (01/18/91)
From: rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) |wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: |[...] I wondered as I watched it how many of those |>soldiers would be interested in trading their newfangled weapons in for |>some old reliable FN FALs like the British army used before they adopted |>the L85s... | Huh? The FN used to fail to chamber the round if it got grit in the |ejection port. (1) The Israelis discovered this during the 1967 conflict. (2) The "FN-FALs" the British adopted are different from the metric pattern FALs used elsewhere. Among the differences are a series of grooves along the bolt to trap grit. Does this help it work better than standard FALs in grit? Experienced users reply! (3) Currently being unloaded on the USA market ('cause Bush has screwed FAL imports) is a top receiver cover that includes an ejection port cover.
andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (01/19/91)
From: andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) In article <1991Jan17.054422.29971@cbnews.att.com> !simnet@ssc-vax (Mark R Poulson) writes: >There are two important areas to consider ballistically. First, wounds are >usualy much more severe when the bullet strikes its target with a velocity >greater than 2100 f/s (the speed of sound in water/flesh). Wound ballistics is a field filled with "common sense" that doesn't seem to have any relevant supporting evidence. In particular, there are lots of plausible mechanisms, shock waves, crushing, ripping/tearing, temporary/permanent cavity formation, etc, but only one, the size of the permanent cavity (assuming sufficient depth) actually seems to correlate with damage in humans. In particular, temporary cavities, which targets like melons and water jugs demonstrate vividly, don't actually matter (with the exception of skin and liver damage, neither organ flexes much, and brain damage, because the skull doesn't flex). Much of the confusion comes from reasonable assumptions that aren't true. For example, causing twice as much damage to a melon doesn't mean that more, let alone twice as much, damage will be inflicted on a human. (The two targets have very different characteristics, namely elasticity.) Even within the same media, things don't always work out the way you'd expect. For example, more velocity with the same bullet doesn't necessarily result in a larger permanent cavity. (No, I'm not talking about over-penetration, I'm talking about the observed behavior that excess velocity often results in a much larger temporary cavity and the same, or smaller, permanent cavity.) This info comes from the U.S. Army's expert in wound ballistics, Col Martin Fackler, M.D., at the Presido. -andy -- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu BELLNET: (415) 723-3088
bercov@bevb.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz) (01/19/91)
From: bercov@bevb.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz) In article <1991Jan17.054422.29971@cbnews.att.com> !simnet@ssc-vax (Mark R Poulson) writes: > >There are two important areas to consider ballistically. First, wounds are >usually much more severe when the bullet strikes its target with a velocity >greater than 2100 f/s (the speed of sound in water/flesh). Secondly, bullets >drop with range. Both of these points are better with high muzzle velocities >and high sectional densities (i.e bullets that are heavy in relation to their >caliber). > On the 2100 fps: I don't think so. The speed of sound in a liquid, according to my old Sears & Zemansky physics book is SQRT(B/rho) where B is the bulk modulus which is the inverse of the ISENTROPIC compressibility, in this case, and rho is the density of the liquid, all at the appropriate temperatures. I don't have too much data on water at 37C, but I have some for 20C, which should be close enough. Roughly, salt water has a density of 64 lbm/ft^3 and you can convert this to rho by remembering to divide by gravity in the English system ('cept the English disowned it so it must be Mare-kin) getting 9.59^-5 lbf-sec^2/in^4. Then you get the isentropic compressibility of sea- water out of your CRC or some such place and invert it and convert it remem- bering there are 6895 N/m^2 to a lbf/in^2, you get 344,000 psi. Then the speed of sound in saltwater at 68F must be: SQRT(344,000 psi/9.59^-5 lbf-sec^2/in^4) = 59900 in/sec = 4990 fps. '-) Q.E.D. JHBercovitz@lbl.gov
bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au (01/19/91)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au In article <1991Jan9.041957.20958@cbnews.att.com>, thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) writes: > Well true, but training should be available. During WW1, British soldiers > armed with the SMLE Mk 3 (Short Magazine (?) Lee Enfield) were routinely The correct nomenclature for the SMLE is "Short,[as in short barrel] Magazine, Lee Enfield." It was used to differentiate from the earlier versions of the Lee Enfield rifle which had a longer barrel. > shooting at ranges over 500 yards. But this was mainly the peacetime troops > who were trained properly, as their ranks thinned through attrition, I don't > doubt that the standard dropped. What is even more interesting is that the "Old Contemptables" as they were known (the pre-WWI British Regular Army) were so highly trained in their musketry drill (as it was still known) that they could achieve a rate of fire of 20 rounds a minute of well aimed shots (and this with reloading their 10 round box magazine once in that minute using charger clips through the action). This was so fast that when the German Army encountered them first in Belgium and then later on the Marne they believed that the British were very well equipped with Machine Guns (when in truth they had about 2 per battalion at this stage). What is even more surprising was that when I joined the Australian Army in 1977 we were using the L1a1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR), the British version of the FN-FAL. We were always taught that its practicable rate of fire was, yes you guessed it, "20 well aimed shots a minute"! In other words the previous 50 years of military technological development had simply given to the common soldier what the highly trained "old contempables" had been able to do in 1914! :-) > >>>The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be (a) greater >>>effective range (b) more reliable in sand/dirt (c) ammo common >>>to M60 MG and other NATO forces. >> >>a) see above >>b) the M-14 has an exposed action. I've never personally doused one with sand, >>but i doubt it's very good for it. The M-16 is on the other hand enclosed >>except for a (closable) ejection port. The M-14 may be more reliable >>inherently but i doubt the sand will but close the reliability gap, if not >>nullify it. > > Col. David Hackworth, in his book "About Face", said of the AR-15 > (quoted without permission) [ Col.Beckwith's very interesting comments deleted...] > Mind you, he says nothing of the M14, but throughout the book he continually > derides the M16 - in its original form. In the glossary, he describes the > M16 as "Unquestionably the worst infantry weapon ever forced upon > American fighting men; the standard U.S. infantry rifle employed in Vietnam. My own experiences with the M16 here in the Australian Army tend to agree. My particular bugbear is that Lungeman direct gas return system. Give me a conventional gas piston anytime. Its more reliable and easier to clean. Brian Ross
bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au (01/19/91)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au In article <1991Jan17.054212.29838@cbnews.att.com>, wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > > [I wrote] >>[...] I wondered as I watched it how many of those >>>soldiers would be interested in trading their newfangled weapons in for >>>some old reliable FN FALs like the British army used before they adopted >>>the L85s... > From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) >> Huh? The FN used to fail to chamber the round if it got grit in the >>ejection port. > > If I was wrong in characterizing the FN FAL as "reliable" in this desert > warfare scenario, I apologize. I was under the impression that the FN > FAL was one of the best battle rifles ever, in any climate, and that its > main failing was a gradual deterioration of accuracy as it aged and was > repeatedly stripped for cleaning and became worn, because the rear sight > was on the back end of the receiver and thus on the wrong side of the > hinge from the front sight, so that play developed between the two. > > I would really like to read more about the FAL; there's a series of > very-high-priced books on the various models of the rifle which I never > have seen, sad to say. If people on the list have any experience with this > rifle in its various incarnations, as it sounds like David has, please post > comments, anecdotes, or discussions about this weapon. I have used the L1a1, Rifle, Self-loading (SLR), the Australian and British version of the rifle rather extensively during service in the Australian Army. It was my preferred weapon if it was possible to get it. While heavier and slightly more cumbersome than the M16a1 which was also available (in limited quantities as it was used as an SMG replacement in infantry units) it was a much more reliable weapon. I also had a choice sometimes of using the F1 SMG which is an Oz designed and produced weapon (has the unusual feature of a magazine over the the top of the reciever, rather than under it which is the norm in SMG's). The F1 was a particularly reliable and robust weapon, however its lack of range (100m Max effective range aimed from the shoulder and only 25m from the hip) and lack of hitting power (only 9mm Parabellum) usually meant that I wasn't too keen on carrying it. Also experience in Vietnam had shown that the size and shape of the weapon had tended to mark the user as being a "specialist" in his function to snipers (the F1 is usually carried by people like Signallers, drivers and officers) whereas its harder to identify you if have a longarm. The L1a1 if kept properly clean was a particularly reliable weapon in my experience. The key was that it had to be kept properly clean, particularly the gas system and the bolt carrier ("slide" as it is known). However that is a common problem with all automatic weapons. Having used it extensively in an arid environment here in Oz I can state that the weapon was not particularly vulnerable to stoppages if it ingested small quantities of sand (in otherwords it could not survive having sand being poured into the ejection port, but wind blown or kicked up sand wasn't a major problem). Sand is also not a problem if decreased quantities of lubricant (oil) or a dry lubricant is used instead. The problem is when sand adhers to the oil and forms a gritty paste which will rapidly wear working parts. So when moving into an arid region the order usually is given to clean your weapons and remove excessive oil. What occurs then is that the biggest problem is preventing your weapon rusting at night when what little moisture there is in the desert air precipitates as heavy dews. What you have to find is the right balance then of enough lubricant to ensure the weapon functions, is stopped from rusting (which happens all too easily in my experience), and doesn't get coated in a heavy layer of abrasive dust. The M16a1 on the other hand is very vulnerable to dust as machined tolerances are much closer in that weapon. While the ejection port cover prevents the injestion of excessive quantities of dust, what does get in has a much greater affect, particularly as the weapon has to have a heavier coating of oil on its working parts than does the L1a1. Another problem I encountered with the M16a1 was that of the Lungemann direct gas return system which doesn't make use of normal gas piston. This sort of system if maintained properly works well, however it is difficult in the field to keep the weapon that clean. Perhaps the powder we were using in the rounds that I fired through the weapon lead to excessive fouling but quite often the weapon would suffer a stoppage every few rounds fired. Brian Ross
bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au (01/19/91)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au In article <1991Jan9.041850.20766@cbnews.att.com>, wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > > > From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> >>Britain now uses the L85 5.56mm bullpup rifle, which has the added bonus of a >>low-magnification sighting scope. > > Recent TV news footage of British soldiers in Saudi participating in > live-fire desert-warfare training exercises showed them using the new > bullpup rifles; the reporter commented on how the rifles were jamming in > the sandy conditions. I wondered as I watched it how many of those > soldiers would be interested in trading their newfangled weapons in for > some old reliable FN FALs like the British army used before they adopted > the L85s... The British version of the FN FAL, the "Rifle, Self-loading, L1a1" to give its full title, differed from the FN FAL in several aspects. Perhaps the major one was that it was rendered incapable of firing on full-automatice by a change to the change lever and the trigger sear. Externally the major differences was the use of a non-recipocating cocking handle (it locked to the body after the weapon was cocked and did not move with the bolt-carrier when firing took place, whereas the FN FAL's did) and the flash eliminator which was replaced with on incompatable with rifle grenades. The L1a1, like any semi/fully automatic weapon is prone to stoppages caused by ingestion of sand and mud if not kept clean properly. One of the main reasons why the Australian Army decided not to follow the British lead in adopting the L85 bullpup rifle was because of that types problems with operating in arid environments. Instead we decided to adopt the Steyr AUG which features a more tightly sealed butt assemble which excludes the intrusion of sand. Having read the Australian Army report on the British Army hot weather trials conducted in Australia on behalf of the British Army of the L85 and its derivatives, its no wonder they are encountering problems with them in the Saudi desert. One wonders if this is not a case of the British Army being caught with its pants down. They had obviously decided that it was worthwhile having a weapon which was optimised for use in European conditions, rather than a weapon which could be used effectively in other environments as well. It will be interesting to see what other deficiencies are brought to light after the dust has settled. Brian Ross
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/22/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au >Perhaps the powder we were using in the rounds that I fired through the weapon >lead to excessive fouling but quite often the weapon would suffer a stoppage >every few rounds fired. The original AR-15 design was carefully matched to its original ammunition. The US Army changed the ammunition drastically -- substituting a more powerful but much "dirtier" powder -- and this turned a rifle that was rather more reliable than the then-current issue rifles into one that was (and is) conspicuously less reliable. (The very high reliability of the original design was established in the Army's own trials.) The design was "fixed" to cure some of the other problems of the substitution, but the reliability problems were blamed on the soldiers' not keeping it clean rather than on the Army's bad judgement. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/22/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) In article <1991Jan19.040239.4164@cbnews.att.com> andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >only one, the size of the permanent cavity (assuming sufficient >depth) actually seems to correlate with damage in humans. I'd be curious to know how this can be reconciled with the early combat results of the AR-15. Its original dinosaur-killing reputation came from combat experience in Vietnam, not from Army PR. Most everyone who used it reported fantastic lethality from a small-caliber weapon that would be expected to produce quite a small permanent cavity. (Then the Army "improved" it into the M-16, and the reports changed.) -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks) (01/24/91)
From: Peter Brooks <brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> I cannot remember if this has been dealt with, but the ammunition for the AR-15/M16 was a ball (spherical) powder. The process used to make this powder involves running the droplets into an acid solution to get the balls to form. Later on, the acid is neutralized, and any forming actions required are done. (some powders are flattened; I am not sure about "real" M16 ammunition powder.) Unfortunately, the vendor went to Calcium Carbonate for the neutralizing step. The original chemical was something else, but I don't remember what. The Calcium Carbonate did its job, but had the unfortunate side effect of plating the gas piston and cylinder with more calcium carbonate, which is also known as limestone. Running a lot of round with this powder guaranteed a malfunction unless you specifically cleaned the rock out. When the problem was identified, the vendor (must have been Olin) switched neutralizing chemicals. This is why the problem is no longer present. Pete Brooks
simnet@ssc-vax (Mark R Poulson) (01/25/91)
From: !simnet@ssc-vax (Mark R Poulson) In article <1991Jan19.040239.4164@cbnews.att.com>, andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: > From: andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) I wrote: >>There are two important areas to consider ballistically. First, wounds are >>usualy much more severe when the bullet strikes its target with a velocity >>greater than 2100 f/s (the speed of sound in water/flesh). . . Discussion of shock waves, crushing, ripping/tearing, temporary/permanent cavity formation deleted. . . > This info comes from the U.S. Army's expert in wound ballistics, > Col Martin Fackler, M.D., at the Presido. > > -andy Most of Fackler's discussions that I've read deal with velocities common to pistol cartridges (i.e. is a 1500f/s .357 Magnum much superior to a 1100f/s 9mm). Dr. Fackler always seems to indicate that velocity (by itself) doesn't seem to have that big of a permanent effect. I agree with this theory until the velocities approach 2100f/s. After this point, I don't feel a 2800f/s bullet is superior to a 2200f/s bullet -- 2100f/s is a threshold for some (unknown?) phenomenon. Many respected people with combat experience support the 2100f/s theory. Chuck Taylor and (now deceased) Mel Tappan are two I can thing of off the top of my head. A deer hunter can also tell you that "lightning bolt" kills don't happen with the 30-30 or .44 Magnum, but they do happen with high velocity rifles. I don't know what the specific effect is but many believe something changes around 2100f/s. I alluded to this being the speed of sound in water, which another poster indicated was way off. I got that "fact" from rec.guns and I did not check it; this has probably reduced my credibility. Final food for thought: Some US Congressman or Senator has a left arm that doesn't work (?Alexander Haig?). This is because he was shot in the shoulder in WWII by a "high velocity" rifle. I can't see how an 8mm hole could destroy all the nerves for an entire arm by itself. Perhaps the high velocity shock from the bullet destroyed all the nerves for that arm.... Mark @ ..uw-beaver!ssc-bee!simnet
SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV (02/05/91)
From: SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV
In article rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) writes...
/(2) The "FN-FALs" the British adopted are different from the metric
/pattern FALs used elsewhere. Among the differences are a series of
/grooves along the bolt to trap grit. Does this help it work better
/than standard FALs in grit? Experienced users reply!
What are the differences of the Indian FN's.
rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) (02/06/91)
From: rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) |From: SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV | In article rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) writes... | /(2) The "FN-FALs" the British adopted are different from the metric | /pattern FALs used elsewhere. Among the differences are a series of | /grooves along the bolt to trap grit. Does this help it work better | /than standard FALs in grit? Experienced users reply! | What are the differences of the Indian FN's. Just for clarifications sake, by "bolt" I really meant the "bolt carrier," the part thats visible from the ejection port. The British (English dimensioned) FN-FAL (Designated L1A1) and the Indian 'FN-FAL' are both identical, both being English dimensioned weapons. The only visible machining difference on the Ishapore units seems to be the lightening cuts made in the lower receiver.