Guns Like firearms themselves, there's a wide variety of opinions on what's the best gun.

e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

Old 11-16-2006, 07:59 AM
  #21  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NH
Posts: 854
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

Like eldequello said, this has been around for years.

I carried the M-16 around in the first gulf war as well. When the ground assault started, it was raining!! The moisture kept the dust and dirt down to a minimum and I had no jam-ups at all. I was very anal about keeping my toy gun clean, and only experienced one jam on the range over there, slamming the forward assist took care of it. As far as the 5.56 for a killing cartridge, a 3 round burst to the chest puts the bad guys down every time.


kenman is offline  
Old 11-16-2006, 08:44 AM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,553
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

There was nothingin that email that is secret information that can not be gotten from the media. There is nothing about troop movements, specific operations, ect...that in my 16 years in the Army and combat arms would have caused a stir, gotten anyone in trouble or led to anything else.
Red Lion is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 08:23 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hurley, NY
Posts: 864
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

Thanks for the interesting read today... I really love the idea of a 300 win mag for a sniper rifle. I was firing mine yesterday and wondering if they actually use such a heavy rifle for an application like that. way to go
salty is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 07:25 AM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

That email is complete bull****, please don't think it is a real assessment...
skin290 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 07:29 AM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,553
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

ORIGINAL: skin290

That email is complete bull****, please don't think it is a real assessment...
Being a vet that has been to Iraq two times, this email does not seem to be BS at all, but fairly accurate.
Red Lion is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:15 AM
  #26  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 27,585
Default [Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]
Deleted User is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:04 AM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

ORIGINAL: Red Lion

ORIGINAL: skin290

That email is complete bull****, please don't think it is a real assessment...
Being a vet that has been to Iraq two times, this email does not seem to be BS at all, but fairly accurate.
Here is a write up that was given by another poster in response to said article, if you can dispute those points, go ahead...


>1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy
2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more
popular because its lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also.
>
Where is a Marine getting experience with the M4? They are very limited
in the Corps with the only large number in use with Force Recon units
and Det-1. Both units use the M4A1. Most of the rest of the Corps is
using the M16A4.

The reports coming out of Iraq actually read this way with regards to
reliability:

> The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and
> reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the
> weapon after pulling it out of the dirt ("like you can do with the AK"
> was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability.
> This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by
> the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was
> a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.



> They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons
lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert
environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the
cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably
counted on to put the enemy down.
>
Here we go again....."Stopping power is such a subjective thing. This
is from the PM Soldier Assessment Team Report:

> It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm
> (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were
> some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced
> or desired "better knock-down power" or a larger caliber bullet did
> not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements
> and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and
> procedures (TTPs) - controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and
> head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most
> that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the
> target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were
> reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one
> shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with
> targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with
> proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition
> is lethal in close and long range.

And a bit more on lethality:

> Discussion: There have been many engagements with the M855 spanning
> ranges from 10 feet to 250 meters against soft targets (non-armored
> individuals) during OIF. Observations from the field cover many
> different responses from "I shot him in the gut and he ran away", "I
> had to put multiple rounds in him to stop him", to "I shot him in the
> chest and he went down" and "I shot him in the head and he dropped on
> the spot". There are many different views on the lethality of this
> round ranging from the need for a heavier bullet (the need for more
> stopping power), to "We have no complaints with the M855 ammunition.
> It is satisfying the operational need." One brigade of soldiers
> interviewed made a very interesting statement concerning the lethality
> of the M855. Their focus groups indicated that based on proper target
> acquisition with the improved M68 (CCO), shot placement, basic rifle
> marksmanship, and firing controlled pairs they were very satisfied
> with the round's performance/ terminal effects.
>
> Recommendations: A Government Lethality IPT has been stood up to
> standardize GEL block testing and an engineering study will be
> conducted extensive, soft target terminal effects of COTS and military
> 5.56mm ammunition. The characteristics of each bullet terminal
> performance will be determined. Based on requirements and using the
> engineering information, a new round should be type classified and
> made available.


The complete report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm>


Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.
>
I have heard nothing about random autopsies on insurgents. I rather
doubt that this is happening due to considerations for the perceptions
of the Iraqi people. There would be a huge outcry not only on Al
Jezerra but in our press that we were "mutilating" the enemy dead....


>2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun.
Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of ain:. Chronic jamming
problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that fun in the middle of
a firefight).
>
First off, it's the M249 SAW and it's not drum fed. It's belt fed.
Granted, the plastic box magazines the 200 rd belts come in, could be
mistaken for a drum magazine by someone who had never seen one before,
but I would think that a Marine would know the nomenclature of this
weapon. Also most units are buying the nylon bags to carry the belts in
because they don't rattle and fall off like the plastic box magazines,


>3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit
multiple times and still in the fight.
>
Well the M9 has had all kinds of problems with the aftermarket magaines
the military is buying, but the author leaves this out. It's been
documented in many offical AARs that the Checkmate brand magazines are
junk, yet they haven't been recalled and soldiers and Marines are still
having problems with them.


>4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.
>
The Marines are using the Benelli 1014 shotgun. They may still field
the Mossberg in some quantity. Hate to bust the author's bubble, but
shotguns are used to breech. With the restrictive rules of engagement,
rifles and precise shooting is the order of the day for clearing
operations. Buckshot and slugs are hard to aquire in country and I have
a friend who said they used birdshot to scare people who approached too
close to convoys.


>5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed
to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up.
Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a
vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the
field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
>
The Army and Marines have used the M240 for years. It's the standard
platoon level machine gun. They don't have to dismount them from the
vehicles. The dismount kits for the M240 thats the coax gun in the
Abrams and Bradley is very hard to come by. If they dismounted the M240
from the turret, it's most likely unusable in a ground mount role.


>6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their
dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
>
>

>7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody
authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few
exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit.
>
Force Recon and Det 1 are the Marine units carrying .45s. There are
couple Army units that don't really exist using 1911 types and Glock 19s.


>The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it.
>
The special ops guys are using SIGs (Navy Special Warfare), M9s (Army,
Air Force), MEUSOC 1911 (USMC Force Recon), Kimber 1911 (USMC Det 1)
Various 1911s and Glock 19s (unnamed Army SOF). As a side note
Springfield Armory was recently given a contract to build the new MEUSOC
pistol.


> The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
>
Not true at all.

>8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified
version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and
low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and
they love the 7.62 round.
>
Again not true. Some units are using modified M14s with commercial
aftermarket stocks, but they are not being issued in bulk. None of the
aftermarket stoks currently in use is made of kevlar.


>9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.
>
A single shot even from a .50 BMG isn't enough to stop a vehicle.
Machine guns, especially the M2 are most used to stop car bombs. They
are used to remotely detonate IEDs that are discovered and you'll find a
lot of them in the hands of EOD.


>10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in
Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills
with OVER 100.
>
The Marines don't use the M24. They use the M40, the current iteration
being the M40A3. No M24s are fielded in 300 Winchester Magnum, even
though they are built on the Remington long action to make this possible.

>11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can
reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47
round.
>
We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAS with SAPI plates weighs in
at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin
protection you're back up over 20 pounds.

....
>
I can't help but notice the author doesn't know squat about our current
weapons and how they are employed. It seems to me that this is another
missive written to justify someones personal opinions about what weapons
our troops should be issued.

> Bad guy weapons:
>
>1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert
than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.
>
.308 Russian???? Who makes that? Is it a cusotm loading? How come the
Iraqi insurgents don't use the more common 7.62x39 round? Saddam must
have left tons of it stockpiled around the country. That would greatly
simplify their logistics...........

....

>
>3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordans area
were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and
wire them together.
>
The enemy didn't use 155mm howitzers...perhaps the author means 152mm??

It's been awhile since I've seen something this full of misinformation spread
across the internet.

Jeff

skin290 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 11:43 AM
  #28  
Nontypical Buck
 
GRIZZLYMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

I'm glad that the military has a 7.62 MG again. I carried an M-60 when I was on active duty thirty years ago, and I believe in it. I was a Captain in the reserve when they came out with the M240 in 5.56, and thought, with a lot of others, that was a step backwards.

As far as the 5.56 round goes; when I was a young enlisted and officer later, a lot of Vietnam vets told me that the reason for adoption of that round was because;

1) Carry more ammo,
2) Theory that a wounded enemy took two soldiers (at least) out of action instead of one.

I don't know how number two holds any water, and argued that point until I quit wearing a uniform in 1991.
GRIZZLYMAN is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 11:54 AM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

ORIGINAL: GRIZZLYMAN

I'm glad that the military has a 7.62 MG again. I carried an M-60 when I was on active duty thirty years ago, and I believe in it. I was a Captain in the reserve when they came out with the M240 in 5.56, and thought, with a lot of others, that was a step backwards.
you mean the M249, correct?
skin290 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 11:58 AM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
GRIZZLYMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
Default RE: e-mail From US Marine in Iraq

ORIGINAL: skin290

ORIGINAL: GRIZZLYMAN

I'm glad that the military has a 7.62 MG again. I carried an M-60 when I was on active duty thirty years ago, and I believe in it. I was a Captain in the reserve when they came out with the M240 in 5.56, and thought, with a lot of others, that was a step backwards.
you mean the M249, correct?
Probably. I'm going from memory, and my memory isn't that good anymore. If I recall correctly, it was made by FN.
GRIZZLYMAN is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.