The Army’s Marksmanship Problem

[rangerrebew]

The Army’s Marksmanship Problem

September 17, 2020 by Special Guest ~ Leave A Comment
 

by Kevin Wilson

Back in May 2016, the Army Times ran a piece announcing that the Army was officially looking to replace the M16 family of weapons and the 5.56mm cartridge with a weapon system that is both more reliable, and has greater range.

As the article states, they’re taking a hard look at “intermediate rounds,” or rounds with diameters between 6.5 and 7mm, that have greater range and ballistics than either the 5.56 x 45 or the 7.62 x 51, both of which are old and outdated compared to the crop of rounds that have sprung up in the last decade or so. The thinking is, with these newer rounds, you can easily match the superior stopping power of the 7.62 without sacrificing the magazine capacity afforded by the tiny 5.56 cartridge, while still giving troops better range and accuracy.

https://havokjournal.com/culture/military/armys-marksmanship-problem/

[Elderberry]

What’s the point of giving soldiers a shiny, new rifle if they can’t hit the broadside of a barn with the one they’ve got?

Now, before you break out the pitchforks and your Expert qualification badges, sit down and think about what I’m saying. Unless your MOS directly involves shooting things in the face, when was the last time you went to the range during the workday for something other than qualification? When was the last time you broke out the rifles for anything other than to qualify, or to clean them for inspection?

For most folks, the entirety of their marksmanship training will consist of three weeks in Basic, the few days out of the year when they go qualify, and maybe a few days or even a week or two of extra training when they mobilize. And that simply isn’t enough.

Nevermind that the Army’s qualification system is stupid and outdated. Shooting static popup targets at ranges between 50-300 meters is a good start, but to rely on that as the sole measure of a soldier’s ability to engage the enemy is insane. According to the Army Times article linked up at the top, one of the driving forces behind looking for a new round is the fact that something like half of all firefights occurred at ranges greater than 300 meters. Meanwhile, your average soldier doesn’t even bother shooting at the 300 meter targets, because they know they can’t hit the damn things.

If the Army’s quest for a new sidearm is any indication, the search for a new rifle will take at least a decade, untold millions of dollars, a half-dozen Congressional inquiries and investigations, and probably a few lawsuits before they settle on the final product. Which means there’s plenty of time to teach soldiers how to shoot before the new gear ever starts filtering its way through the system.

[sneakypete]

@Elderberry

Everything but the last paragraph is irrelevant in that the soldiers who never shoot won't be hurt by this,and don't even care,and the soldiers who DO shoot will be greatly aided by it. The wars of today are not short-distance jungle warfare firefights. They are often shooting across windy valley's where 300 yards is a close shot. They NEED the longer and heavier bullet to fight wind gusts,and still hit hard enough at long distances to take the enemy soldier down.


IMNSHO,the 7mm round is the IDEAL compromise between a ineffective short-distance round like the 5.56mm,and something like a 300 Winchester Magnum. It has also proven itself to be a man-stopper in wars dating all the way back to the late 1800's.

They even have adjustable gas pistons,so you can adjust them to function with either low-pressure rounds,or high-pressure rounds.

IF you want to do both the soldiers AND we mere taxpayers a "solid",contact your congress critters and suggest to them they lobby for the US military to simply adopt the FN-FAL in 7MM as the standard US Service round. This is one of the most accurate and reliable semi-auto rifles to be manufactured,and it has been tested in battlefields all over Africa and other nations since the 1950's in one version or another. The FN-FAL of today can't be beaten for an issue military rifle,and best of all,we will save multi-millions in dollars and time that we won't have to spend to re-invent the wheel.,

ALL we need to do to supply our military with 7mm FN-FAL's is to have someone in the Pentagram call FN on the phone and say "I need X-amount of FN-FAL's in 7mm,with cleaning kits,bayonets,slings,x amount of grenade launcher attachments,plus ammo. How much,and when can you deliver them?"

The first partial shipment will begin the next morning when they start loading the cargo ship to bring it here.

Trust me on this. I have shot or owned everything in the US military arsenal and in most military arsenals back in the 60's and own a FN-FAL. Yes,you CAN buy them with or without a full auto/automatic fire selector switch.

IF the FN-FAL will meet ALL our mechanical and function needs AND it is already available to buy off the shelf,and it does and it will,WHY THE HELL do we want to spend millions to recreate the freaking wheel?

And finally,if you were to ask me if I were going to go into battle and had a choice of any battle rifle in the world to carry,MY choice would be "A FN-FAL."

[Elderberry]

I wouldn't hold my breath for the FAL chambered in 7x57 to be selected. Don't get me wrong, I like the FAL. I've shot my son's often. I love the 7x57 and I have 2 rifles I chambered in 7X57. One issue is the 7X57 is an old design with a max SAAMI pressure of 51,000 psi. Modern cartridges, like the 6.5 Creedmoor are rated to 62,000. That allows cartridges to be smaller/lighter and still be more powerful.  I'm partial to the 6.5s. I have 2. A 6.5x47 Lapua, I've bagged several deer and hogs with. And a 6.5 Grendel that I shoot in my AR. I can shoot the same 140gr bullet I load in the 6.5x47, just a couple hundred fps slower.

[sneakypete]

I wouldn't hold my breath for the FAL chambered in 7x57 to be selected. Don't get me wrong, I like the FAL. I've shot my son's often. I love the 7x57 and I have 2 rifles I chambered in 7X57. One issue is the 7X57 is an old design with a max SAAMI pressure of 51,000 psi. Modern cartridges, like the 6.5 Creedmoor are rated to 62,000. That allows cartridges to be smaller/lighter and still be more powerful.  I'm partial to the 6.5s. I have 2. A 6.5x47 Lapua, I've bagged several deer and hogs with. And a 6.5 Grendel that I shoot in my AR. I can shoot the same 140gr bullet I load in the 6.5x47, just a couple hundred fps slower.

@Elderberry

The cases could be made stronger. The actions are plenty strong enough to hold higher pressure rounds. I once bought a case of surplus 7x57mm ammo made by Israel for use in the heavy-barrel MG version of the FAL,and had no trouble adjusting my rifle to shoot it comfortably and reliably.  Granted,if you shot it up fast it would burn the barrel out in no time at all,but if you are in combat and shooting that fast,the enemy is close enough that accuracy isn't your major concern.

Having said that,there is absolutely nothing lacking in the standard 7x57mm load of today TO BE USED BY THE TYPICAL SOLDIER.

We need to get away from the military mindset that "One size works for all situations," Yes,you MUST have ammunition compatibility with your fellow soldiers in "big army" units,but what says all the weapons must be identicial? Issue the standard rifle to "standard" soldiers" and the beefed up rifles to the squad LMG guys,as well ass issue special purpose-built rifles to the designated snipers.