The problem is now the Army is trying to replace the proven M16/M4 5.56mm family with the HK 5.56mm rifle of dubious value (sounds like high-level kick-backs and "pork" is involved)

We all know how the OICW was heavy and is now somewhat less heavy and still expensive, but lets first look at its intended function for validity. Enemies hiding behind frontal cover are immune to our kinetic energy direct fires regardless of whether they are 5.56mm or 7.62mm or something bigger until you reach the point where the projectile can penetrate and it may require a launcher that is no longer man-portable. Rather than blasting through, OICW seeks indirect fire "top-attack" by an electronic fuze to burst overhead. Good idea, but why does it have to be wed on top of a 5.56mm rifle of dubious necessity?

Again, the painful truth; the M16/M4 family has been plagued since their inception with a direct gas system that blows dirty carbon into the chamber area resulting in clogging and jams and constant cleaning. The HK 5.56mm assault rifle wed to OICW sneaks it into the Army system as a new purchase, a "fix" to the M16/M4 family in typical mandarin, let's-spend-a-lot-of-money-to-soak-up-more-bureaucratic-power fashion. Then once, the OICW is fielded, the Army could buy HK 5.56mm assault rifles without the smart 20mm grenade launchers and throw away their M16s/M4s and 4-decades of expertise and training. EXACTLY what has happened!

I vehemently reject this course-of-action (COA) since we will still when all is said and done be stuck with a short-range jungle assault rifle albeit with an excellent smart grenade launcher. We are still not optimized for open terrain or urban combats.

Over in the marine camp, there is talk of adopting the M4 SOPMOD as their future rifle (Why if you are so dis-satisfied with 5.56mm range in Afghanistan operations? Just to look as sexy as Army lightfighers?) and to pull some M14 7.62mm MBRs out of war stocks to outfit a designated rifleman in each rifle squad. The French Army and others have had a 7.62mm MBR sharpshooter with a long-range optic in their rifle squads for at least 3 decades, maybe more, yet we act like this is somehow "revolutionary". What we are doing is simply catching up, what I propose is really "transformational", to use the latest sexy DoD buzzword to cover the status quo re-inventing itself so it doesn't have to change for real.

The Solution is to adapt to optimize for BOTH closed or open terrains

First, separate the OICW into rifle and smart grenade launchers. After this web page was posted this is EXACTLY what happened! Do we get a brownie point? Maybe the Army should listen to our next advice: Do not buy HK "XM8" 5.56mm assault rifles with gas piston system to hide M16/M4 failings, instead use the saved money to retrofit better gas systems to ALL M16/M4s, facing the problem HEAD-ON and solving it instead of covering DoD mandarin ass for failure over the years to improve the reliability of these otherwise superb weapons. For a proven way to do this, look at Allan Zitta's LR300 weapons:

Z-M Weapons, High Performance Systems
203 South Street
Bernardston, Massachusetts 01337
Tel: 413-648-9501 Fax: 413-648-0219
email: zm@zmweapons.com

Compact Assault Rifle - 5.56x45mm NATO - USA - 950 RPM - The LR300 M/L is a compact conversion of the M16/AR15 family. Allan Zitta has designed an entirely new upper receiver which uses an Armalite AR18 style gas piston and relocates the recoil spring over the barrel. The latter feature allows the elimination of the M16/AR15 buffer tube, and provides the base for a folding stock. The resulting product is more compact and reliable than the M4 Colt Commando. By placing the recoil springs on the front of the weapon, the M16/M4 can still use a telescoping stock for compactness, though with a full-length barrel for 800m range.

What the M4A2 and M16A4 should something look like:

Will the Grenadier with stand-alone OICW 20mm GL mean a loss of 5.56mm firepower in the squad?

No, have him carry a M4 carbine.

Won't this be heavy?

It'll be exactly the same "heavy" as having the two weapons physically attached, except sans the bureaucratic hidden agenda, he will have a lighter weight, easier to employ grenade launcher and when he needs to shoot direct-fire, he will have a lighter weight 5.56mm assault rifle.

Next, we need the long-barrel 5.56mm M16A4 type weapons in at least our "Medium" and "Heavy" mechanized units that ride into battle by armored vehicles. Since the M4 and the M16 are similar, we should be able to as the situation dictates, outfit light units with them if they need the 800m extra range as they do now in Afghanistan.

I have never liked the M4 carbine; I have always wanted a full-sized M16A2 with a 20 inch barrel that turns the 5.56mm bullet more than TWICE before leaving for full muzzle velocity. I don't find the long M16A2 troublesome to carry; put Picatinny rails on it and make it a "M16A4".

We should if we want a shorter 5.56mm find a M16 gas piston system and create a M16/M4 bullpup with an ability to eject away from us lefty's face or move the action spring(s) to the front for a folding/telescoping stock that has a full length, 20+ inch barrel and Picatinny rails for all the gizmos we can dream of instead of sacrificing barrel length like we do on the M4. I said this at the time in 1995 and was poooh-poohed with the old saw that we will only have to shoot to 200 meters etc. etc. I DON"T @#$%$^% CARE WHAT YOU THINK I WILL NEED; I WANT 800M RANGE ON MY M16A2+ WHEN ITS MY ASS ON THE LINE. I will hump the extra length and weight without complaint. I want the long barrel.

I suspect a lot of the desire for the M4 is to LOOK SEXY because "common" troops in "support" units have M16A2s etc. etc. I don't care about who feels sexy or not, and am glad the troops have capable M16A2s, and want whats BEST, period. I am special because I am a one-of-a-kind human being made in the image of God (like you) not that I have some toy somebody else doesn't have.

Janes IDR October 2002, "Small arms ammunition advances bit by bit" by Charles Q. Cutshaw on Pages 36-37 reports:

"There have been several reports from troops in Afghanistan regarding the lack of lethality of the SS109/M855 cartridge, particularly when it is fired from an M4 (US) or M8 (Canadian) carbine. This was also observed in Somalia. For the SS109/M855 to achieve lethality, it must be moving at a velocity of over 732m/s when it strikes its target. At this velocity and above, the bullet penetrates a short distance and then begins to yaw as its spinning slows and it tends to return to normal stable state, which is base forward. As the bullet yaws, it comes apart at the cannelure, scattering fragments and causing a relatively large wound channel. In practical terms, this translates to approximately 200m with a bullet fired from an M16 or similar rifle with a 558mm barrel at approximately 914m/s.

When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has traveled downrange only 50m it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced wound ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other an close-quarters battle distances.

The lack of wounding efficacy has caused some military elements to begin exploring the possibility of adopting a 5.56x45mm cartridge with an improved bullet or even a different caliber altogether with improved wound ballistics. Most of these efforts, now only in the earliest stages, have experimented with heavier bullets. For example, US special operations forces in Afghanistan now employ a match cartridge manufactured by US company Black Hills Ammunition that fires a 5g bullet at 792m/s in the M4 Carbine. This cartridge has proven to have improved terminal ballistics over the SS109/M855. Other experiments have been conducted with bullets weighting as much as 6.5g. Some have proposed adopting an entirely new caliber, but this is unlikely in the immediate futures."

There is a reason why I propose we go to great lengths to fix the M16/M4 gas system with a piston; these weapons have a unique upper receiver/lower receiver construction that facilitates modularity that can be used to ADAPT to the battlefield to attain physical, situational superiority. In every U.S. Army rifle squad regardless of heavy or light there should be a "Designated Sharpshooter" with a 7.62mm M16 which can be achieved via a new upper receiver, new bolt carrier group and new magazine that narrows at the top from double to single row for feeding. Remember, before there even was an "AR-15" (M16) there was the AR-10 in 7.62mm x 51mm. We can do this, its already being done as you can buy AR-15s that shoot full-size 7.62mm cartridges (re: the KAC SR-25 called the "Mk 11 Mod O" in USN SEAL team use). By having a smart OICW grenadier with indirect-fire for top-attack, and a long-range defacto sniper with a strong strike-at-1km range capability, the rifle squad can in the face of long range enemies get suppressive fires onto them. Army SF realizes the M16/M4 carbine's adaptability and for their Phase II SOPMOD has an upper receiver module shooting 6.8mm (!) cartridges for greater range/striking power though it means introducing an entirely new ammo type which the DoD mandarins will likely resist. Why go to 6.8mm when we already have more powerful 7.62mm in the system and in every Army infantry company?

Furthermore, the inclusion of a 7.62mm "M16A5" gives everyone in the squad a chance to familiarization-fire the weapon each year such that in event that their 5.56mm M16/M4s prove inadequate to the task at hand, they can be outfitted with 7.62mm M16A5s with the realization their weapon will fire with greater kick (recoil) and they will carry less ammo per man. One possible scenario is urban areas, while closed terrain where lots of bullets firing fast are needed to hit fleeting enemies and suppress, the buildings and walls prevalent are difficult to penetrate with 5.56mm bullets so larger bullets are needed to have effects on the enemy. The M16 becomes actually two rifles; either an AR or a MBR as the situation dictates. The Army's 4 decades of expertise with these weapons is not pissed away and new capabilities are gained. However, the willingness to optimize also means accepting "help" from other combat arms units and different weaponry types.

Is this enough to prevail in Urban Combat?

An Army Colonel writes a 2003 Report from Iraq:

"Every body needs two weapons. Forget M4s. They don't get enough muzzle velocity generated to go through cinderblocks but M16s do. We need to rethink small caliber for combat in cities. Need something that kills the close in target not pokes little holes in it. Something like a Thompson submachine gun with a little more powder behind it.

Need to re-look night vision for semi-illuminated urban environments.

Everyone loves the .50 cal. Need to re-look the TO&E of motorized and transport units so they are more like WWI in the number of machineguns. Every truck in your unit needs a ring mount and a fifty up front and probably another in back.

Fire extinguishers need to be able to put out big rubber and fuel fires. 240 Machine guns get great reviews but not enough of them.

SAWs are great but poke little holes. They are used as crew-served weapons a lot on HUMMVEs without something bigger.

All units need to work on machinegun marksmanship.

Sniper training in urban environment where people are living and moving around your position needs a relook.

Need rubber pads for guard posts; lots of standing for troops."

The American rifle squad is notoriously outgunned by most enemies with Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) in close fights where its rapid-firing explosive effects trump the garden hose effects of bullets; think Mogadishu and now Afghanistan. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of this sorry state of affairs. The RPG has two pistol grips and a dedicated gunner so it can be run into firing position, ready-to-shoot whereas U.S. disposable rockets are ignored without a designated gunner and have to be opened to fire, precious seconds we can ill afford in a firefight. The first fix we need is a bullet-trap combination rifle/hand grenade that can be supplied to EVERY Soldier in the rifle squad to project a grenade out to 150 meters. To save weight, it could also be tossed like a German stick grenade so most hand grenades wouldn't have to be carried. Our disposable SMAW-D (M141) and AT4 (M136) rocket launchers should have pistol grips molded into them so we can run-and-shoot like the enemy's RPGs. Next, we should purchase M3 Ranger Anti-Armor Assault Weapon Systems (RAAWS) which the 75th Ranger Regiment uses, but are actually Carl Gustav 84mm rocket launchers the rest of the world has used for decades for out to 700 meter explosive shock action and supply them to the weapons squad in every rifle platoon and a designated gunner and ammo bearer. FYI, the AT4 shoots a Carl Gustav 84mm rocket from a disposable launcher, the SMAW-D shoots a Mk-153 SMAW 83mm rocket from a disposable launcher. The Mk-153 SMAW is a re-loadable rocket launcher used by the USMC but lacks the huge family of rounds that the Carl Gustav has available for versatility, but does have a clever spotting rifle aiming system. See things for what they are.

Former marine officer, Carlton Meyer writes that we need even more firepower for urban combat success:

"I agree we shouldn't reconfigure infantry for the remote chance of more mountain warfare, but I don't see jungle warfare in the future either; it will be 90% urban warfare (as a percent of casualties). The big issue is body armor, retired Col Gallmeier who worked that issue says the Army is in for nasty surprise if it encounters a body armored opponent with its 5.56mm or even 7.62mm weapons. The tiny frags from a 20mm OIWC will have little effect too, remember our helmets can take 7.62mm rounds. Notice whenever a body armor clad Israeli Soldier is killed by gunfire, its always a head or neck shot.

However, I agree that leaping to a new cartridge is a big step. I agree with the Marine Corps idea for one or two sharpshooters per squad, but I'd arm them with a .338 or an extra-light .50 cal. Not only for body armor, but doors, walls, cars, LAVs, and lastly, for sniping. There is an exploding Raufoss .50 round that I've read is frightening.

And yes, one RPG equipped grunt per squad. And I'd add a new lightweight 7.62mm machine gun per squad too. Yes, this lots of extra weight, but I'd cut the three 5.56mm M249 machine guns out of each squad (that' a Marine Corps squad, I don't know what the Army uses) At 22 lbs each (loaded), I don't see the light 5.56mm MG adding much to the mix.

Each squad would have two light 5.56mm rifle maneuver fire teams, and one weapons team with a 7.62mm MG, an RPG, and an extra-light .50 rifle"

Carlton is right---we need to make DRASTIC changes to prevail in MOUT. The Army rifle squad has 2 x 4-man fireteams. I'd put a .50 caliber sniper weapon in the weapons squad at platoon level for starters. The belt-fed 5.56mm M249 LMGs have been disappointments in my opinion--jam if you fire 30 round M16 magazines through them, noisy....me thinks a heavy barrel M16 with a bipod and multiple connected magazine set-up or a CMAG type drum (that works) would be lighter and better as a real BAR type replacement. A BAR needs to be able to be fed by the ammo from the riflemen instantly. So why not cut out a couple M249 LMGs in the Army rifle squad and replace with a heavy barrel M16 and a 7.62mm or .50 caliber sniper weapon system?

Future U.S. Army Rifle Platoon configured for MOUT Version 1.0

PL (7.62mm M16A5)
PSG (7.62mm M16A5)
RTO (5.56mm M4)

1st Squad
2nd Squad

Details:

3rd Squad Leader (7.62mm M16A5)

Team leader A (7.62mm M16A5)
Rifleman/Scout (7.62mm M16A5)
Grenadier (OICW 20mm GL, 5.56mm M4)
Automatic rifleman (5.56mm HB M16A4 LMG with bipod)

Team leader B (7.62mm M16A5)
Rifleman/Scout (7.62mm M16A5)
Grenadier (OICW 20mm GL, 5.56mm M4)
Automatic rifleman (5.56mm HB M16A4 LMG with bipod)

Weapons Squad @ Platoon level

Medium Machine Gun Team (7.62mm LW M240B MMG)
Assault Rocket Team (M3 RAAWS 84mm Carl Gustav)
Heavy Sniper Team (.50 caliber SWS)

* ALL have bullet-trap rifle/hand grenades
* ALL wear rifle caliber resistant body armor to include gunshields on their weapons
* Some have SMAW-D rockets with pistol grips
* Organic All-Terrain All-purpose Carts (ATACs) and electric/pedal All/Extreme Terrain Bikes (A/ETBs) to enhance mobility

Rationale: the "movers" have 7.62mm M16A5s to point/shoot, knocking down targets as they pop up. The "suppressers" have 5.56mm M4 carbines shooting smaller bullets in quantity to fire over time so the "movers" can, move.

A former Army SF grunt and now AF special operator writes:

"I have some issue with the 'M16A5'.

Besides the fact that I don't think we need to outfit almost every guy in a squad with a 7.62 weapon, we are going to have a major problem with the logistics tail if we call the 7.62 black rifle variant an M-16. I like the Knight's weapon and one of those per squad is a great idea. In MOUT you are going to need a lot of bullets and they aren't going to be going very far so you might as well stick with 5.56. The M-4 with SOPMOD is the best weapon I have ever used. Granted, I only have 17 years of military experience. If you asked my dad, there is no finer rifle than the [7.62mm] M-14.

Perhaps SOCOM will get it right with the SOF Combat Rifle (Light) coming in two calibers. If it works, hopefully we will see it spill over to the rest of the Army and we will have one rifle consisting of one lower and two uppers (maybe three). I say three because there are two companies coming out with .50 uppers that fit the M-16 family. I can see a place for those in the inventory as well.

Stick with the SAW. The Rangers and SEALs (Mk 46) both have lightweight variants that work very well. The M-240 (MAG 58) is also a great weapon and it is one of the many things we have gotten right in regards to small arms in the past ten years.

I don't think the problem is necessarily with the weapons we currently have in the inventory. We have found that we need to supplement them with additional capabilities to help us deal with different environments we will encounter.

You have got to clear buildings, room by room and that is going to take alot of bullets. 5.56 is lighter than 7.62 hence, you get more of the smaller bullets= more rooms. At the ranges we are talking the 5.56 will do the job. I maintain that almost everyone in the squad needs a 5.56 weapon. Add a sniper in each squad with a Mk 11. And then give the .50 uppers to two of the guys for use when METT-T requires it. Our guys need a tool kit and the M-16 family is a great platform to base that tool kit on. You add to it an M-203 with a new family of rounds and you will kick some butt. I am talking about things like an insert so you can use shotgun rounds.

I wouldn't even bother with OICW. I would develop a [smart, air-bursting] 40MM round and a 203 variant to employ it. I remember reading that there is something in the works.

Of course, I still think we need a telescoping, bullet-thru rifle grenade that can be employed by hand as well. Then EVERY man is a de-facto grenadier."

Future U.S. Army Rifle Platoon configured for MOUT Version 2.0

PL (5.56mm M4)
PSG (5.56mm M4)
RTO (5.56mm M4)

1st Squad
2nd Squad

Details:

3rd Squad Leader (5.56mm M4)
Designated Sharpshooter (7.62mm "M16A5" or "Mk11" or "SR-25")

Team leader A (5.56mm M4)
Rifleman/Scout (5.56mm M4)
Grenadier (5.56mm M4 with "smart" 40mm GL)
Automatic rifleman (5.56mm M249 LMG with bipod)

Team leader B (5.56mm M4)
Rifleman/Scout (5.56mm M4)
Grenadier (5.56mm M4 with "smart" 40mm GL)
Automatic rifleman (5.56mm M249 LMG with bipod)

Weapons Squad @ Platoon level

Medium Machine Gun Team (7.62mm M240B MMG)
Assault Rocket Team (M3 RAAWS 84mm Carl Gustav)
Heavy Sniper Team (.50 caliber M16-based SWS)

* ALL have bullet-trap/thru rifle/hand grenades
* ALL wear rifle caliber resistant body armor to include gunshields on their weapons
* Some have SMAW-D rockets with pistol grips
* Organic All-Terrain All-purpose Carts (ATACs) and electric/pedal All/Extreme Terrain Bikes (A/ETBs) to enhance mobility

7.62mm is no panacea for Mountain Combats

Phil West and a former Army enlisted Ranger and Army officer observe:

"By 1945 the Germans had the tools they wanted for infantry, and considerable experiance knowing what worked.

The best equipped squads would have one or two MG42s [medium machine guns] for their main offensive firepower. Most Soldiers would have an SMG or STG for manuver/CQB/Self defence -but, in most photos you'll see there was always at least one squad member that retained the Kar98 rifle. You see this in "Cross of Iron" in the warehouse scene -while the guys with automatic weapons keep the Russians back the rifleman takes his time and makes them count.

Second historical thing

The idea of intermediate rounds (optimised for 500m or less) was a German wartime concept. The usual explanation you see is that in most of the world visibility prevents shooting at more than this range. Since MGs and snipers routinely shoot at greater ranges, the accepted explanation is obviously wrong!

By 1942 the German Army was very familar with alpine and desert fighting-and it is very "un-german" that these would not have been figured into developement of the intermediate rounds. My theory is this. It is accuracy not visibility that is the limiting factor.

A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an aware target can sprint 5-9m -you don't know which direction he will take, and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single-aimed shot is virtually random. I think most shooting was less than 500m because most german riflemen knew there was little point shooting beyond this unless the foe didn't know you were there or you could fill an area of about 10m with bullets.

A couple of friends confirm this with more recent experiences:-

Friend A

'DOD did the same kinds of studies for all kinds of terrain, same result/conclusions; usual infantry engagement was 300 yards or less (didn't matter what you were armed with, typical infantry could not get hits at greater than 300m unless shooting volleys in mass or using machineguns. I was a former USMC National Match M-14 shooter and I can testify that even then the average infantryman was not going to get hits beyond 300m.) If you are under 1000m you call company or battalion mortars or MGs or Mark 19 (full-auto grenade launcher), artillary and air strikes are for better targets that are further off. The point is correct on not firing individual weapons at longer than 300m, you won't kill them and they can call fire down on you!'

Friend B

'If you sight a target element that far away it is much more tactically feasible to call in artillery fire or an air strike thus saving your infantry the suicidal need for a half mile movement-to-contact. If you don't have fire support it is better to get closer before engagement to limit your target's tactical options. 500 to 700 meters gives them room to do just about anything. Especially if you have let them know you were there by shooting at them from that distance. They may HAVE fire support!!'

I used to advocate that mountain units should be issued 7.62mm rifles likethe FAL for "more range" -but now I begin to rethink. If you are not shooting at 1000m, a 20-24" barreled M16 is less of a burden to carry up the mountain.

The 7x45mm sabot round would solve performance -more carrying power, better terminal effects and less effected by cross winds.

On the 5.56mm -best terminal effects are when the round fragments -for both the M193 and the M855 this is at less than 200m for a M16, 150m for a M4 and does not occur when fired from barrels under 14.5" -so how much use for defence is that 10" under the OICW? A smart fused 40mm grenade for the SACO Striker GMG already exists -with a reduced charge this should work in the M203 etc. As said, the AR15 is modular -you can change a M4 to a M16 by just drifting out a pin and changing the barrel and reciver top -no need to provide both M4s and M16s for every trooper"

We must still realize even after doing all this, that many 7.62mm snipers in Afghanistan now want .50 caliber rifles for 2 km range---even 7.62mm for 1 KM range isn't enough to hit many targets. Remember, this is the mountains and enemies can be seen farther away than can be hit with small caliber arms. The epic Canadian sniper team exploits killing al Queda terrorists were only possible by the range of their .50 caliber rifles. In some fights other, heavier weapons will have to be central to the fight--in deserts its Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) since you can't walk far in the desert and ground vehicles are the main movers and targets, in mountains its long-ranged mortars, artillery, rockets and heavy machine guns---learn to value these weapons and not be rifle and ego-centric; rifle infantry is to MANEUVER, to locate and close with the enemy, these are not idle thoughts. For infantry to move, other weapons will have to suppress and we would be wise to also field towed 2.75" Hydra-70mm rocket launchers, and integrate C-130 airdrop and airland transportable M113A3 Gavin light tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles into Army Light and Airborne units since they weigh 10.5 tons--the same as their FMTV 5-ton trucks yet provide tracked armored mobility and 25-30mm autocannon, 120mm heavy mortar firepower to reach out across open terrains or bust through urban structures and destroy enemies so the infantry squad can arrive to encircle and destroy the enemy who cannot escape. The Army has a M113A3 Gavin unit on alert in Germany to fly into Afghanistan, but doing this would reveal to the world that there is no need for lav3stryker rubber-tired armored car multi-billion-dollar purchases. Air Assault infantry can achieve similar Air-Mech-Strike capabilities with 7-ton armored M973A2 Small Unit Support Vehicles (BV-206S in NATO terms) that can roll-on/roll-off CH-47D Chinook helicopters.

Noted war futurist Phil West of England concludes:

"For a squad/platoon marksman rifle my inclination is for something that can hit harder at long range than the 5.56mm weapons. In fact I'd like something harder hitting than the 7.62mm LMGs too. The British Army seems to feel the same since they are arming platoon snipers with .338s.

Best candidate is a magazine bolt-action in either .500 Whisper or .510 Whisper. Both rounds are from SSK and use .50 BMG bullets, the former in .460 casings, the latter in .338.

With modern synthetics it should be possible to create a weapon of 12lbs or less. If you are moulding a stock it only makes sense to make it in a mottled grey and brown pattern, or even Advantage.

Using a .50 rifle gives the options of

· Subsonic rounds.
· Large capacity anti-material rounds such as HEI.
· High penetration rounds such as SLAP
· Sabotted high velocity long range rounds in .338 or .408

The fact that these rounds use the same bullets as .50 BMG weapons means that rounds developed for .50 weapons can be easily adapted to the rounds.

Which ever round is chosen, be it the .500 whisper or .510 Whisper a new name will be needed for military use to avoid confusion. I suggest ".510 Sniper" or ".510 SSK". "Five-ten" cannot be confused with "fifty calibre", and dropping the term Whisper prevents the weapons being though of as "specialized".

Extended range sniper weapon. I think this should stay .50 BMG. Best choice seems to be the Ferret 50, which is in use in Afghanistan. The fact that this uses a AR-15 lower makes field repairs easier.

I've suggested that the Ferret have an ejector added to increase rate of fire

against targets such as vehicles or helicopters. I've also noted that a integral side feeding magazine could be incorporated. Another feature worth looking into is a blast supressor.

www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hush.html

The Finns have built these for weapons such as the Barrett. Not only do these reduce blast, noise, flash and dust kick-up, but also recoil. The sabotted .338 or .408 rounds suggested above could also be mounted in .50 BMG cases.

As far as assault rifles and other armaments go, my views are summarised at www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/letter.html"

In closing, if we discard the M16/M4 family and waste millions of dollars reinventing the assault rifle and grenade launcher----that would be better used to gain new capabilities like bullet-trap rifle/hand grenades and better rocket launchers---instead of optimizing them, we will lose a golden opportunity to exploit their modularity to attain both open and close terrain combat dominance on the 21st Century battlefield.

itsg@hotmail.com

A very sharp small arms expert writes:

"Dear Sir,

Let me first say that I find your website to be fascinating and informative.

Let me also say that I am no great proponent of the 5.56 cartridge.

I believe that there was a typo or some kind of error in the text written by Mr. Cutshaw in the article he wrote for 'Janes' concerning the lethality of the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge. Mr. Cutshaw states that the SS-109 / M-855 must be traveling at over 732m/s to properly fragment. Mr. Cutshaw also states that the standard M-16 generates a muzzle velocity of 914 m/s with its 20" barrel and the M-4 only yields 790 m/s with its 16" barrel. He states that the SS-109/M-855 falls below the 'required' 732 m/s at the 200-meter mark when fired from the M-16. He also claims that the SS-109 falls below 732 m/s at only 50 meters when fired from the M-4. This is impossible. Generally 1" difference in barrel length equals a difference of 30 fps. By following this formula we find that if the M-16 fires this round at 2900 fps the M-4 should fire it at 2720 fps. Even at the most extreme, the M-4 must achieve at least 2600 fps at the muzzle. If we assign a ballistic coefficient of .265 to the SS-109 bullet and crunch the numbers we find that if the muzzle velocity is 2900 fps, at 200 yards the bullet is moving at 2218 fps. Using a muzzle velocity of 2600, at 115 yards the bullet is still moving at 2222 fps.

Mr. Cutshaw also states that the SS-109/M-855 'breaks at the cannelure' to achieve its superior knockdown power. I am not an expert on the wound ballistics of the SS-109 bullet, however I wonder if Mr. Cutshaw wasn't referring to the older 55-grain ball ammunition. This ammunition, indeed, broke into two pieces at the cannelure.

From what I understand many troopers are now using the Black Hills 77-grain match ammo in the field. According to Mr. Cutshaw this is to enhance the wounding capabilities of the .223 cartridge. This ammunition is loaded with the 77-grain Sierra Match King bullet. This bullet does not have a cannelure and does not incorporate the 'enhanced wounding' design features of the SS-109. As this bullet is heavier than the 62-grain SS-109, it does not achieve the same muzzle velocity. Sierra does not recommend this bullet or any 'Match King' bullet for hunting applications because they are not designed to expand. They are, however very accurate bullets with a high ballistic coefficient. They are not as susceptible to the wind at long range and I imagine they are good for blasting through brush.

The 7.62 is obviously much more powerful than the 5.56. With proper bullet design stopping power would obviously be higher with the larger caliber. There is however no guarantee that those failures of the 5.56 to stop the enemy would have been cured by using the heavier cartridge. Often a deer continues to run after being hit solidly with a 30-06 rifle. The .5.56 cartridge is of course much lighter which allows a Soldier to carry much more. It is also more difficult to design a rifle weighing less than eight pounds around the larger cartridge.

Incidentally, just because a cartridge is more powerful, that doesn't mean that it necessarily is better for long range shooting. Of course the terminal energy will probably be greater but the smaller cartridge may buck the wind better and/or shoot flatter. As an example look at the little 6mmBR cartridge loaded with the 107-grain Sierra Match King. This combination shoots flatter than the 7.62 and bucks the wind better - in fact it is almost the equal of the venerable .300 Winchester Magnum in every area except terminal energy.

Yours,

A freedom loving American"

Noted Vietnam combat vet and author, Ralph Zumbro writes:

"Mike;

Please make a paper note on battle rifles and nail it to your bulletin board with a bayonet. Between you, our English friend and me, we may just come up with an acceptabile rifle that can be manufactured by the current suppliers. Your comment that the M-15-16 series has a unique custimisable reciever is valid. Its problem is that damn direct gas injection problem. If a gas piston is used, not only does the weapon become MUCH more reliable, it can suddenly be made much shorter. A folding stock suddenly becomes possible.

I never did like that Kennedy Whiz Kid .22 cartridge for military use. It was designed for woodchucks, not people. Trying to use it for military purposes is rediculous. Re basic load....Spend enough time on the range taking accuracy and instinctive training reduces your need for large amounts of ammo.

Making the weapon in 7.62x39 makes sense too, and maybe making a version that would accept AK magazines would make battlefield resupply a natural. There also exists a shorty tanker's AK in 9x39, which throws a 130 grain 9mm slug at subsonic silencable velocities and has about a 200 meter range....Perfect for armored crew use, as it has a short barrel and a folding stock and can use AK magazines...We need seriously to get into this.

For the record, I spent much of my first tour, in the late 50s/early 60s, on an Airborne Battle Group marksmanship detachment, and hold a master's rating with both the Garand and the M-14."

An Army Combat Engineer writes:

"Enjoyed your article on the M16 and the proposed fixes that have been developed for that rifle. I agree with you that the current 5.56 mm round be retained while the M16 itself be improved. Over the last few years, emphasis has been placed on urban warfare and CQB. From what I understand, this was the rationale for the military adopting the shorter-barrelled M4 version of the M16A2. Other developments were born out of this new found focus on urban firefights, such as a new 5.56mm duplex round (where one bullet is placed behind the other bullet within the casing). It was was developed to increase the odds of hitting a fleeting target with two bullets at shorter-ranges without expending as many rounds. Ironically, we find ourselves in a desert environment where long-range shooting is needed and not the close-quarter tactics we had been emphasising. The idea for a Designated Marksman is an excellent idea that should help bridge the long-range gap. The Israeli Army once used the M21 (a scoped and accurized M14) as its designated marksman rifle to make up for the failings of the Galil and M16 in this regard. The Soviets had their semi-automatic, scoped Dragonov rifle in 7.62mm to do the same thing for their short-ranged AK rifles. As an aside, I recall that a modified M16 chambered for the new .300 Whisper round was evaluated by the U.S. Army to address some of the shortcomings of the 5.56mm round. I do not know what came of these tests, but it may be a sign that the Army is looking into more potent caliber options for use in the existing M16 design."

A very sharp writer points out that there is at least one other manufacturer with a better M16/M4 gas system:

"Here's a link to another company making a piston conversion for the M4/M16 family.

www.defensereview.com/article.php?sid=258&mode=thread&order=0

As is referenced in this online story, Charlie Cutshaw has a detailed article on this in the January, 2002 issue of Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement. In addition to enhancing reliability, it improves controllability as well.

Many think the second weak link in the M16 design is the magazine, but Heckler & Koch has a new steel M16-pattern magazine that is supposed to be excellent.

IMHO, these new products have the potential to make the M16 family a truly world-class system.

Best regards,"

XXXXXX XXXXXX

NOTES

Colt M4A1 SOPMOD - 5.56x45mm NATO - USA - 825 RPM - The M4A1 (Colt Model 927) is the most recent variant of the CAR15 family. The barrel length was specially selected to provide compactness without sacrificing reliability. The barrel is also contoured to provide for the attachment of a M203 grenade launcher. In addition, improved handguards with double heat shields have been added to prevent the uncomfortable heating properties of earlier CAR15s during rapid fire.

M4 SOPMOD

The Special Operations Particular Modification to the M4 Carbine Accessory Kit (SOPMOD M4) was developed by the Crane Division, Naval Surface Weapons Center. The SOPMOD M4 kit allows the end-user to configure his/her weapon to individual preferences and mission requirements. It is composed of mostly non-developmental and commercial off-the-shelf accessories packaged together to support four M4/M4A1 carbines.

The kit includes four: Knight Armament Company's Rail Interface System (RIS) forearm along with an optional vertical foregrip, the Trijicon Model TA01NSN 4x32mm Advanced Combat Optic Sight (ACOG) as the Day Optical Scope, KAC's backup iron sights in case of scope failure, and an improved combat sling which allows for secure cross body / patrol carry.

Only two of following are included per kit: the Insight Technologies AN/PEQ2 Infrared Target Pointer/Illuminator for use with night vision goggles, Insight Technologies Visible Light Illuminator (mil-speak for flashlight), Trijicon's ACOG Model RX01M4A1 Reflex Sight, KAC's Quick Attach sound suppressor which provides a 28db reduction in sound signature even with M855 service ammunition, and an enhanced sliding buttstock which is contoured for user comfort and even has compartments for storing spare batteries for the other accessories.

Only one of the following is included per kit: KAC's Quick Attach M203 Grenade Launcher Mount, a quick attach sight for use with the M203, a M203 with a 9" barrel, a Insight Technologies AN/PEQ5 visible laser, a 2.25x Miniature Night Vision Sight (MNVS), and a carrying/storage case for kit accessories. If more of the accessories are needed it is not uncommon for units to cannibalize the kits of inactive teams. The documentation for the kit does not require a rewrite if improved replacements for any of the current items can be found. As a result, this content list may have and probably will change in the future.

7.62mm x 51mm M16

http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/sniper/kac_sr25.html

The SR-25 was a collaborative development of AR-15/M16 inventor Eugene Stoner and C. Reed Knight of Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The SR-25 is essentially an improved M16 chambered for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge and accurized for use as a match rifle or sniper support weapon.

The SR-25 Match Rifle is the basic model, including a 24" (609mm) cold hammer-forged free-floating target barrel. A carbon fiber handguard is included, attaching directly to the receiver without applying any force to the barrel. Though no targeting devices are provided, the SR-15's flat top receiver and gas block include Picatinny rail mounts precision machined directly into them. Knight's can provide detachable iron sights or scope rings as an option.

Mk11 MOD 0 is a military designation originally applied by the United States Navy for a sniper support weapon system based on the SR-25 and originally deployed by the SEALs. It is still in use today by several countries, including the UCAS and CAS. The Mk 11 MOD 0 includes a 20" (508mm) cold hammer-forged, free-floating target barrel, Knight's Rail Adapter System (RAS) consisting of four Picatinny rails for mounting various devices, flip-up front and rear detachable iron sights, Harris swiveling bipod, a Leupold 3.5-10x40mm variable power scope with mil-dot reticle, heavy duty scope mounts and a Knight's SR-25 Quick Detach sound suppressor offering -28dB of noise reduction. This rifle is also gauranteed to shoot 1 MOA.

The SR25K-SD is an integrally suppressed fully-automatic version of the SR-25, designed to fire the the subsonic .338 Whisper cartridge for maximum performance during stealthy operations. The SR25K-SD includes a 16.5" (419mm) cold hammer-forged free-floating barrel surrounded by a full-length suppressor with a coaxial vortex baffle stack for a very impressive -34dB of noise reduction. Adding 10cc of water to the system offers an additional -10dB of reduction. Other features include a full-length Picatinny rail along the top of the rifle, flip-up front and rear detachable iron sights and a retractable stock for improved compactness.

www.geocities.com/landofsnipers/weapons/sr-25.htm

Knight's Armament SR-25 Stoner is a flattop accurized version of the famous M-16 5.56 mm assault rifle, but chambered for the powerful 7.62 mm round. Some users claim this is the most accurate semi auto in the world. With proper ammo it can easily produce 0.75 MOA groups, and this is really good for a semi auto.

Its barrel is a 24 inch heavy floating barrel, which means that it is attached only to the main body to prevent too much resonance. That's why the rifle is so accurate. On the top there is an Integral Weaver-Style rail provided, so a lot kind of scopes, night visions can be attached. Stock is a black synthetic one, AR-15A2 design. The glass-reinforced synthetic forend attaches to the upper receiver at a single point. The trigger is also from the AR-15. It is fully adjustable.

SR-25 is in use in the United States and Israel. In Israel it is issued with either a Leopold X10 day optic or a Litton Aquila X6 Night Vision Device (NVD), and used alongside with M-16A2 and M-24 SWS as a Designated Marksman rifle. Used mainly in covert ops, when the origin of weapons must not be point to Israel.

.50 caliber HMG M16 "The Ferret"

Ferret 50 Web Site

Dave Moore
Spider Firearms
2005-B Murcott Dr.
St. Cloud, Fl 34771
407-957-3617

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=46011

New American 1 shot killer bullet. 5.56mm round that can kill easier faster nastier!!

1-shot killer. This 5.56mm round has all the stopping power you need ? but you can't use it. Here's why: By John G. Roos Special to the Times

Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them. In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.

He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,¦ Thomas said.

Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new and controversial bullet.

The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is "nonstandard" and hasn-t passed the military-s approval process.

"The way I explain what happened to people who weren-t there is - this stuff was like hitting somebody with a miniature explosive round,¦ he said, even though the ammo does not have an explosive tip." Nobody believed that this guy died from a butt shot.

The bullet Thomas fired was an armor-piercing, limited-penetration round manufactured by RBCD of San Antonio.

A new process

APLP ammo is manufactured using a so-called ?blended-metal¦ process, said Stan Bulmer, president of sales and manufacturing for Le Mas Ltd. of Little Rock, Ark. Le Mas is the distributor of RBCD ammo.

Various bullet types made by RBCD are designed for different effects, Bulmer said.

The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist-s clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating ?untreatable wounds.¦

Le Mas gave Thomas a small number of APLP rounds after he contacted the company.

After driving off their attackers, Thomas and his colleagues quickly searched the downed enemy fighter for items of intelligence value. They also took time to examine the wound.

?There-s absolutely no comparison, whatever, none,¦ to other wounds he has seen from 5.56mm ammo, Thomas said in a telephone interview while on home leave in Florida.

He said he feels qualified to assess a bullet-s effects, having trained as a special-operations medic and having shot people with various types of ammo, including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops.

Thomas was the only member of the four-man group who had RBCD ammo. He said that after the group returned to base, they and other members of his group snatched up the remaining rounds.

?They were fighting over it,¦ he said. ?At the end of the day, each of us took five rounds. That-s all we had left.¦

Congress wants tests

Last year-s defense budget included $1.05 million for testing blended-metal bullets, Bulmer said. Fourteen months into the 24-month period during which those research and development-testing funds must be spent, the military has not purchased a single bullet from Le Mas.

Publicly, at least, military officials say RBCD ammo is no more effective than other types now in use and, under certain conditions, doesn-t even perform as well. Those conclusions are derived from a series of tests conducted a few years ago in which RBCD ammo-s effects were observed in ballistic gelatin, the standard means for testing bullets.

Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Gary Roberts, a recognized ballistics expert and member of the International Wound Ballistics Association, conducted the gelatin tests in March 2002.

According to his findings, ?Claims that RBCD bullet terminal performance can vary depending on target thickness, size or mass were not shown to have merit, as bullet performance remained consistent irrespective of gelatin block size.¦

Roberts found that in gelatin, a 9mm, 60-grain slug exhibited ?tissue damage comparable to that of other nonexpanding 9mm bullets and is less than that of standard 9mm [jacketed hollow point] designs, since the RBCD bullet does not create as much tissue damage due to its smaller recovered diameter.¦

A .45-caliber bullet ?offered average terminal performance in bare and denim- clad gelatin, similar to that noted with the 9mm bullet. ... The RBCD bullets do not appear to be a true frangible design, as significant mass is retained after striking a target.¦

Not surprisingly, Roberts- assessment remains a major impediment to getting RBCD ammo into military hands. Considering his standing in the ballistics community, his findings are accepted as gospel by many influential members of the special-operations community.

But Bulmer insists that tests in ballistic gelatin fail to demonstrate RBCD ammo-s actual performance because the gelatin is chilled to 36 degrees. Their bullets seem to shatter most effectively only when they strike warmer targets, such as live tissue. Bulmer said tests using live animals clearly would show its effects. Despite his appeals for such testing, and the funds set aside by Congress to conduct new tests, the military refuses.

Bulmer said authority to spend the testing funds initially went to U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which delegated testing responsibility to the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Queries to the command confirmed that it was aware of the testing requirement but had not decided when, or if, the tests will be conducted.

Bill Skipper, president and CEO of the American Business Development Group, is a lobbyist representing Le Mas on Capitol Hill. ?When I heard of the ballistic characteristics of this ammo, as a retired military officer, I realized it has to stay in the good guys- hands,¦ he said, adding that SOCom- s reluctance to test it is ?irresponsible.¦

?This is an issue of national security,¦ he said.

Some supporters of RBCD ammunition suggest SOCom officials may be reluctant to test the ammo because it threatens ?in-house¦ weapons and ammunition programs underway at the command.

Special-operations forces long have sought a more potent standard round than the 5.56mm, which lacks the punch needed during the long-distance engagements that frequently occur in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response, SOCom is working with weapons and ammunition manufacturers to develop a new round and new upper receivers for M4 and M16 rifles.

The command apparently has narrowed its search to a 6.8-by-43mm round.

Indication of industries- involvement in this effort was seen in October during the annual Association of the U.S. Army exhibition in Washington.

If Le Mas- 5.56mm APLP round delivers the performance SOCom is seeking in the new 6.8mm ammo ? and Bulmer insists it does ? the rationale and the potentially lucrative contracts for producing a new ammo type and modifying thousands of weapons used by special-operations forces would disappear.

Thomas said he isn-t familiar with the reasons that might keep RBCD ammo from getting a realistic test within the military.

?The politics, that-s above my pay grade,¦ he said. ?All I really care about is that I have the best-performing weapon, optics, communications, medical equipment, etc. I-m taking Le Mas ammo with me when I return to Iraq, and I- ve already promised lots of this ammo to my buddies who were there that day and to their friends.¦

When military officials in the United States got wind that Thomas had used the round, he quickly found himself in the midst of an online debate in which an unnamed officer, who mistakenly assumed Thomas was in the service, threatened him with a court martial for using the nonstandard ammo.

Although Thomas was impressed by RBCD ammo-s performance, he feels it should not be the standard ammunition issued to all U.S. forces.

?The first thing I say when I talk to people about Le Mas- ammo is, make sure that 22-year-old infantrymen don-t get a hold of this, because if they have an accident ... if they have a negligent discharge, that person is dead. It doesn-t matter how much body armor you have on.

?This is purely for putting into bad guys. For general inventory, absolutely not. For special operations, I wouldn-t carry anything else.¦

A video clip on RBCD ammo that was shot at the annual Armed Forces Journal Shootout at Blackwater is online at

www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets

John G. Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal.

www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php

What happens when a .50 caliber bullet hits the head of a terrorist? (not for the squeamish)

GET INVOLVED! DON'T LET AMERICA'S ARMY SELF-DESTRUCT WITH A BAD CHOICE FOR ITS NEXT RIFLE!

Voice your concerns in the U.S. Army's Infantry Center/School Forum

Join the 21st Century Rifle Controversy Study Group's Yahoo! message group to get the latest news over the battle for America's next service rifle:

21CRC-subscribe@yahoogroups.com