The issue is that with a5.56mm carbine you are going to struggle to get much effect out to 300'plus yards anyway, you need a full length barrel for that. This in turn means a full length rifle or a bullpup configuration. This is where the PDW fits in, its ammunition is specifically designed to be effective out to 300 yards and over that you will opt for a full length assault rifle or even a battle rifle or DMR.
Role of rifle fire/heavier small arms/other weapons
- Thread starter EmperorNortonII
- Start date
300m is well within the capabilities of a 5.56mm carbine. 5.56 max effective range is considered to be 500m for point targets. I've seen guys running M4s with 14.5" barrels topped with a RCO hit man sized targets at 300m consistently and rapidly.
Advertised MER for the MP7/P90 is only 200m.
For terminal effectiveness, 5.56mm with the right bullet choice has proven to be a pretty effective cartridge across the spread of ranges it's used for.
A M4 sized weapon is already pretty small and light. Weapon weight is not currently a common complaint heard from riflemen. The only complaint I've heard on size was from USMC riflemen early on running M16s house to house while Army was issuing M4s. A PDW as standard infantry issue might be great for the house to house fighting that was common in Iraq, but would render much of the rifle squad ineffective in Afghanistan. As infantry combat can take place at a variety of environments, a jack of all trades like a M4/16 class weapon is probably a better choice for general rifleman use.
From a logistics and resupply perspective, it's also helpful that the squad automatic weapons (either SAW or IAR) are running the same cartridge as the riflemen.
Also, if there was an effort to push to a new NATO standard cartridge altogether, I would think most complaints regarding the 5.56 would favor consideration of cartridges like 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC. Or even 300 Blackout.
You are right I was mixing up 300 and 600 for 5.56 although for the PDW I was thinking more the KAC 6x35 PDW. With the 508mm barrel 5.56 is good for 600m the carbines tend to struggle, as I understand it, because the 10 and 12" barrel doesn't give the propellant enough time to fully combust.
The really short barrel (10/12") weapons like the Mk18 CQBR are not generally issued infantry weapons, but intended for units that focus on CQB work. Around 2009, my boarding team's MK18's got replaced by M4's. Don't really know why, but suspect poor ammo performance out of the MK18 may have been a reason. And in that application, for SOCOM units, it seems that PDW's like the MP7 have already found their place.
For general infantry use, as you already noted, there were earlier issues when they (Army) went from the M16's 20" barrel to the 10.5 to 14" barrels of the M4 and other variants. The problem really lies in the ammo that was issued. They did not tailor the ammo load from the 80's era M855 optimized for Warsaw Pact helmet penetration at range out of the SAW.
Newer ammunition like M855A1, the USMC's SOST, or SOCOM's Mk262 were designed specifically to address performance out of M4 length weapons, and other performance deficiencies out of several years of "field evidence."
Some light reading:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...ues-new-m855a1-ammo-to-troops-in-afghanistan/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/02/usmc-adopts-new-open-tip-sost-5-56-ammo/
But plenty more info out there.
For general infantry use, as you already noted, there were earlier issues when they (Army) went from the M16's 20" barrel to the 10.5 to 14" barrels of the M4 and other variants. The problem really lies in the ammo that was issued. They did not tailor the ammo load from the 80's era M855 optimized for Warsaw Pact helmet penetration at range out of the SAW.
Newer ammunition like M855A1, the USMC's SOST, or SOCOM's Mk262 were designed specifically to address performance out of M4 length weapons, and other performance deficiencies out of several years of "field evidence."
Some light reading:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...ues-new-m855a1-ammo-to-troops-in-afghanistan/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/02/usmc-adopts-new-open-tip-sost-5-56-ammo/
But plenty more info out there.
The MP7 was not developed with equipping normal infantry squads in mind. Personal defence for officers, vehicle crews, rear area units and CQB for special squirrels is the name if the game.
As for havaing only one kind of round in the platoon. I think the problem is quite overblown. Besides rifle and MG ammo a platoon humps handgrenades, UGL ammo, some kind of RPG ammo, battlefield illum, some mines or claymores and probably an ATGM with it. Add to that a multitude of other non ammo stuff.
Having one or two kinds of rounds in the logistics pipeline is a neglie difference. And I expect the situations were you start to delink your GPMG ammo in order to refill some rifle mags are nearly none existant.
As for havaing only one kind of round in the platoon. I think the problem is quite overblown. Besides rifle and MG ammo a platoon humps handgrenades, UGL ammo, some kind of RPG ammo, battlefield illum, some mines or claymores and probably an ATGM with it. Add to that a multitude of other non ammo stuff.
Having one or two kinds of rounds in the logistics pipeline is a neglie difference. And I expect the situations were you start to delink your GPMG ammo in order to refill some rifle mags are nearly none existant.
With the come back of 7.62x51 for LMGs and DMR you are less likely to find a single calibre in a section these days let alone a platoon. At platoon level I believe in some armies you even start seeing .338". As an ex grunt give me a HK417 (or similar) any day, as an ex bucket head (once I got sick of walking) PDW all the way thank you, although I wont complain about the F-88C carbine either.
Another angle is the greater use of specialist weapons at lower levels within the ORBAT. If you have blokes with .338" bolt action rifles, multi shot grenade launchers, RCLs etc. something better than a 9mm pistol my be appreciated by them.
That's not entirely true. In many ways it's a question of training/professionalism. I've seen (in real life, not instruction videos) marksmanship instructors hit man-sized silhouette targets at 1000m with AKMs and AK-74s, from the kneeling. And I'm not talking about some crazy marksman pose, with elbow-mag support, and sling around the fore-arm. I mean he dropped down to a kneeling from standing, and fired 10 rounds in 15 seconds, and hit 8/10 and 9/10.
Now it's another question whether you can train your line infantry units to that standard. But for example the army only trains out to 300m with the M-16. USMC trains to 500. And I've been taught 550m for point, 650m for area targets, as max. eff. range, even though we don't train that way. But the limitations there aren't so much inherent to the weapon as they are to the operator.
I have a hard time believing that using standard factory rifles and 7.62x39mm ammo. Was it a verified 1000m target? That ammo is known to lose muzzle velocity and accuracy atrociously out past 300m. You could probably work up a custom build match grade weapon and target load, but I still have my doubts. Same problem if it's running 5.45mm. Even a MK12 SPR with long range ammo isn't going to reliably reach out to 1000m.
USMC Scout Snipers with custom built bolt action 7.62x51mm rifles and high quality optics train to a max effective range of 1000m. Dragunovs with 7.62x54mm can do similar numbers, but also need to be accurized with precision parts and ammo. Hence my earlier skepticism about the factory spec rifles...
While I agree that the operator is key, there does come a point where the equipment starts to limit you...and that usually happens well before 1000m for systems not specially built for long range shooting.
USMC Scout Snipers with custom built bolt action 7.62x51mm rifles and high quality optics train to a max effective range of 1000m. Dragunovs with 7.62x54mm can do similar numbers, but also need to be accurized with precision parts and ammo. Hence my earlier skepticism about the factory spec rifles...
While I agree that the operator is key, there does come a point where the equipment starts to limit you...and that usually happens well before 1000m for systems not specially built for long range shooting.
I'm not sure what you mean by verified. It was at a range, and those targets were supposed to be 1000m. I didn't have a laser range finder, but it looked roughly like a km. As for the weapon, that's an interesting question. I don't know for a fact, but both of the rifles looked fairly standard. He was using iron sights.
Personally, I've never shot an assault rifle at a target further then 500m. And visibility is a major issue at longer ranges, so your point about the optics is well made. I remember when on a MG range with 240Bs we were supposed to engage point targets at 1000-1200m. They were green ivans on a green field, and we weren't using MDOs (MG optic). It took 3-4 bursts to get on target.
The main point is that a lot more can be gotten out of the existing weapons with better training.
EDIT: A brief search turned up a video of a guy with an AK-103 hitting targets at 1000 yds, but he's using bipods, in the prone, and a scope of some sort, so it's not quite the same. And of course there's no way to verify anything from the video. I'll see if I can turn up more.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbB__F-nd1Q"]AK-103 hitting target at 1000yrds - YouTube[/nomedia]
What makes me skeptical is the ballistics math. At 1000yds (which is ~900m), a green ivan is roughly a 1MOA shot across. A standard issue M4 and ammo combination will deliver about 2MOA if you take the shooter out of the equation. The production spec I've seen IIRC is 4MOA, but in field performance has always been better from what I've seen. A sniper weapon system is expected to deliver sub-MOA (0.5-0.8) performance with match grade ammo, but involves a lot of high precision gunsmithing and QA. But that accuracy rating only really holds over the max effective range of the cartridge selected. Go much past that, and it's more of a crapshoot.
For example, you zero M4s at 25yds to serve you out to 300+yds. The 2MOA accuracy you see at 25yds should hold out to 500yds. At 500yds, 2MOA is still very much "minute of green ivan." But at 1000yds, I'd expect ~50% of shots to miss entirely, for a perfect shooter with no environmental factors. However, out past 650m, the bullet goes transonic. Still going fast enough that you could try to "loft" it for a 650+m shot. But at that point, the 2MOA spec pretty much goes out the window, and it becomes unpredictable. Factory AK rounds don't offer improved ballistics (combined muzzle velocity and BC) over 5.56. 7.62x39 is actually notably worse.
For the M240B example, a 7.62NATO at 1000yds is going faster (still supersonic) than either 5.56 or 7.62x39 at 500yds. So even coming out of a sloppy open bolt machine gun, you can at least expect the pattern to be consistent that far out, which lets you walk the impacts in.
That's why I'm skeptical that it happened with anything other than a custom tuned weapon and custom loads. Especially if it was a 7.62x39mm chambering.
For example, you zero M4s at 25yds to serve you out to 300+yds. The 2MOA accuracy you see at 25yds should hold out to 500yds. At 500yds, 2MOA is still very much "minute of green ivan." But at 1000yds, I'd expect ~50% of shots to miss entirely, for a perfect shooter with no environmental factors. However, out past 650m, the bullet goes transonic. Still going fast enough that you could try to "loft" it for a 650+m shot. But at that point, the 2MOA spec pretty much goes out the window, and it becomes unpredictable. Factory AK rounds don't offer improved ballistics (combined muzzle velocity and BC) over 5.56. 7.62x39 is actually notably worse.
For the M240B example, a 7.62NATO at 1000yds is going faster (still supersonic) than either 5.56 or 7.62x39 at 500yds. So even coming out of a sloppy open bolt machine gun, you can at least expect the pattern to be consistent that far out, which lets you walk the impacts in.
That's why I'm skeptical that it happened with anything other than a custom tuned weapon and custom loads. Especially if it was a 7.62x39mm chambering.
I honestly don't know. This was a few years back, in Voronezh. The instructor was some sort of ex-military sniper. He gave us a demo, with the moral of the story being that weapons are a lot more accurate then they're commonly explained in arms manuals. He then gave us a basic combat marksmanship class with the AK-74 (which is what we signed up for). We eventually shot targets 300m away. The weapons we were using, were not the one he was, but they all looked fairly standard.
What kind of modifications do you think would be likely on an AK platform, to produce that kind of performance? Different barrels?
The snipers in my combat team overseas were regularly getting hits on a man sized target at the range with a standard 5.56mm Steyr (20" barrel). It took about 20 rounds to get on, and they were using a Schmidt and Bender scopes, but they were hitting more often than not after that. I don't know what sort of damage the rounds would do at that range though.
Hits with an AK and iron sights from the kneeling position sounds hard to believe though.
Hits with an AK and iron sights from the kneeling position sounds hard to believe though.
I'm not familiar enough with the AK system to talk specifics. But in a general sense, you basically just want to tighten down tolerances of the action so that when the round is chambered, it gets as consistent a fit as possible every time and when it's fired, it leaves with the same velocity.
Equally important would be designing a bullet that can actually reach out to the desired range, designing the barrel to stabilize that round, and then getting high quality ammo that will also deliver consistency to match the weapon's mechanical accuracy.
Yessir, Im not too inclined to believed consistent hits at 1000 with 7.62x39 without seeing it. That is certainly an anomaly. I wouldnt be as surprised if it were 5.45 or 5.56. With the 7.62x39, its not so much about having a match-tuned rifle. Theres plenty of CZ-527 bolt-rifles in 7.62x39 out there on the civvie market and most everything Ive seen has the owners claiming 1-1.5 MOA atleast, sometimes better. No matter what rifle one is using, in 7.62x39, ammo options are scant. Im not sure if the Soviets/Russians ever made any special match-grade/long-range ammo available but with the plain-jane FMJ fodder out there on the market, 1000yd is a daunting proposition indeed. The velocity as well as the BC is just too low. It will be in the transonic range around 500yd at least. Ive never tested it personally, but granted thats because with most bullet designs once you get past the transonic range, all bets are off as far as stability and therefore consistency(AKA "keyholing" in the target). However, there are some bullet designs that will transition with stability. The 168gr .30cal SMK being a notable terrible example for NOT transitioning well. Maybe 7.62x39 FMJ rounds DO transition with stability??? Again, Ive never tested it but its certainly possible. You would have to talk to Bryan Litz to get a better explanation why some bullets do and some dont transition well. From everything Ive seen, the boat tail angle plays the largest role in determining whether it does or doesnt. Hence the 13-degree boattail of the 168 SMK not doing well but 9-degree boat tail bullets and similar transitioning well. Im not sure on flat-base bullets.
With all that said, lets say for a second that common 7.62x39 FMJ rounds DO transition consistently. Even if they do, do you understand the numbers involved? If someone has the ballistic coefficient of a 123gr or 124gr .311 FMJ, Ill gladly run it through a ballistic program to get exact drop/wind numbers. As a VERY rough SWAG though, Id say youre talking about at least ~25-40 FEET of drop at 1000 yards. Hence, that bullet is coming in at a very steep angle, near vertical. Think about that for a second. What this translates into, is any velocity variation(and 7.62x39 fodder is certainly not a model for consistency) is magnified exponentially. Using a benchrest, with a perfect steady hold, and no wind, think several to several tens of inches in vertical dispersion. Though because the bullet is coming in at such a steep angle due to the low velocity, it would be more in front of/on/or behind the target. Even if it does transition well, Id be surprised to see 2/10 hits at 1000 from a 7.62x39. And thats only taking into account vertical dispersion due to velocity variation and such low velocity at that range. If theres any type of switching/complex winds, you can forget about it altogether.
Are you sure it was with 7.62x39? Approximately what altitude and atmospheric conditions?
Again, Id have to see it to believe it.
If anyone here keeps up with the NRA/CMP High Power circuit, well-known competitor German Salazar actually talked quite fondly of the .300 Blackout. (With supersonic rounds) Mr Salazar actually found the Blackout performed admirably at the 600 yard line, needing only a bit more elevation and close to the same wind as a 77gr SMK from a .223. With the best/right load: a SWAG would be supersonic-loaded 155gr A-MAX, the .300 Blackout should make it to a grand consistently.
Id be inclined to believe that one could do the same with 7.62x39 with the right handload, but Im assuming this instructor wasnt using special handloads so Im having a hard time believing it.
With all that said, lets say for a second that common 7.62x39 FMJ rounds DO transition consistently. Even if they do, do you understand the numbers involved? If someone has the ballistic coefficient of a 123gr or 124gr .311 FMJ, Ill gladly run it through a ballistic program to get exact drop/wind numbers. As a VERY rough SWAG though, Id say youre talking about at least ~25-40 FEET of drop at 1000 yards. Hence, that bullet is coming in at a very steep angle, near vertical. Think about that for a second. What this translates into, is any velocity variation(and 7.62x39 fodder is certainly not a model for consistency) is magnified exponentially. Using a benchrest, with a perfect steady hold, and no wind, think several to several tens of inches in vertical dispersion. Though because the bullet is coming in at such a steep angle due to the low velocity, it would be more in front of/on/or behind the target. Even if it does transition well, Id be surprised to see 2/10 hits at 1000 from a 7.62x39. And thats only taking into account vertical dispersion due to velocity variation and such low velocity at that range. If theres any type of switching/complex winds, you can forget about it altogether.
Are you sure it was with 7.62x39? Approximately what altitude and atmospheric conditions?
Again, Id have to see it to believe it.
If anyone here keeps up with the NRA/CMP High Power circuit, well-known competitor German Salazar actually talked quite fondly of the .300 Blackout. (With supersonic rounds) Mr Salazar actually found the Blackout performed admirably at the 600 yard line, needing only a bit more elevation and close to the same wind as a 77gr SMK from a .223. With the best/right load: a SWAG would be supersonic-loaded 155gr A-MAX, the .300 Blackout should make it to a grand consistently.
Id be inclined to believe that one could do the same with 7.62x39 with the right handload, but Im assuming this instructor wasnt using special handloads so Im having a hard time believing it.