Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 04-07-2014, 02:13 PM
togor togor is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 826
Default

A lot of apples-to-oranges talk here. Charles's argument about knockdown power or lack thereof, is spot-on. And don't forget about the wind. Heck, the 196 gr. sS load in 7.9257mm, which is a very old cartridge design, is far superior as a military load (as compared to a match load) at long range than anything in 5.56mm.

So finicky sight or no, I personally would regard being shot at from 1,000 yards away by a M1903 packing .30-06 to be a bigger deal than a M4 with 5.56mm-anything.
  #112  
Old 04-07-2014, 02:51 PM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,507
Default

I fail to see the connection between the initial deployment of the AR15/M16 and the knockdown power of .223/5.56 to have any bearing on the discussion of the M1903 sight?

More to the point, the Marines and Army Soldiers made best use of the rifle, given the tactics and ammunition available during its use. A common task, in all wars and all times. The after action reports give guidance to "next time" we should do this, etc.

There are many quotes I can share from E.C. Crossman's, Book of the Springfield. Many that discuss (and cuss) the mechanical rear sight of the 1903 as a service rifle. This one seems very applicable to the original question of distance. If my typing skills were better, I would like to share the entire chapter on the service rifle sight.

"Most careful check should be made for a few days to see whether the windguage moves during firing, a too-common habit of the service sight. Also the shooter should not start out with less than the .06 size of peep and should not change to anything smaller...

...the fact that a move of the sight of .0065 inch means nearly 11 inches at 1,000 yards or almost a third of the width of the bullseye or more than half of the vertical distance from the edge of the bull to the edge of the paper, then it should be clear to the intelligent shooter that he cannot hope to make such changes surely and accurately by means of juggling this slide with this fingers and reading the difference with his eagle eye."
  #113  
Old 04-07-2014, 03:04 PM
togor togor is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadkingtrax View Post
I fail to see the connection between the initial deployment of the AR15/M16 and the knockdown power of .223/5.56 to have any bearing on the discussion of the M1903 sight?
Oh, that's easy--

The knockdown power (or lack thereof) obviates (or accentuates) the need to get a precise hit.

Completely agree that a loose sight makes 1,000 yard hits something to only dream about. But not all M1903s are loose in the windage. I have some that are, and some that are not. The ones that are not group very very well, especially when it is very bright outside!!

Last edited by togor; 04-07-2014 at 03:08 PM.
  #114  
Old 04-07-2014, 03:06 PM
Col. Colt Col. Colt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 316
Default

Gewehr43, You just can't let it go. You and misslegeek assume that all change is, catagorically, progress. The M16 was just the "next, superior step". Some of us do not share that view. (Just look in the White House.)

The M16 was imposed on the US Military by Robert Strange McNamara - because he was an "efficency expert" who hated the US Arsenal System and wanted private contractors instead. "Everyone should have the same gun. It's more "Efficent" was his Mantra. Fortunately, it turned out better than expected, after Colt reengineered the rifle to meet the Army's requirements.

The M16 series developed into a fine carbine, and, in a majority of situations, it is very adequate - particularly under 200 yards. For jungle and house to house, it rocks. Beyond that, it cannot equal what came before - except on an artifical target range, with artificial rules - and 20" heavy barrels with float tubes. I teach it and maintain it in a Law Enforcement (under 200 meters) context, and I would not chose anything else - in that context. But when velocity dips below 2500 fps, the military ammo no longer fragments, and it's great stopping power up close becomes more of "just a .22" sized hole. Thus the widely differing performance reports on the 5.56MM over the last 40 years. From "It's a Death Ray!" to "I shot him and he didn't notice...." Both statements are true. Very few people "don't notice" a hit from a .30 caliber - at any range.

The reason it "dominates" US Service Rifle Competiton is that it has a weaker cartridge, with less recoil. Weaker is better? It is an easier platform to setup for competition - but that's nothing to do with the ARs the soldiers get to use in the field. The float tube is it's "glass bedding" - absolutely required to get the gilt edged accuracy at the top end. (The M1 and M14 can be a lot closer to "as issued" and still be accurate enough to injury or kill out past 500 meters.) The AR is indeed easier to shoot, and definitely easier to learn, than it's more powerful forebearers. On the target range that "weak sister" status in Power and Reach Does Not Matter - you can poke a hole in a target with a sharpened #2 pencil pretty easy. In the real world, sometimes you need to PENETRATE things.

And no US soldier has been issued an M4 or an M16A1-A4 with a float tube - sling use is somewhat of a problem without one. The issue round is not yet a 77 grain bullet, either - which helps extend the range, but probably would not fragment anyway. Study the readily available 5.56mm results in Ballistic Gel and you learn a lot. And the ballistics suffer quite a bit in a 14.5" barrel. You guys don't use those at Perry, do you? Other than a few details, it's the same "Service Rifle", right?

So what you do in competition does NOT translate well to the battlefield. That is not a positive virtue. The Warrior caste here just have a different opinion than the Gamesmen. It has been pointed out to me here we are "just talking about competiton". Some of us think military rifle competition should have some connection to battlefield reality.

Optics are not an issue - the Trijicon products are truely excellent and rugged. If the ACOG is the default issue sight now, it should be required in Service Rifle on ARs it is issued on. (The cost alone would have people dropping out of Service Rifle!) It you were ONLY allowed to use the Issued Trijion ACOG, it's limitations at long range would already be well documented by now - it's a world class, no batteries Red Dot sight, nothing more, nothing less. With "tic marks" - not click adjustments - for range. That might change - if it was required for competiton, I bet it would change. And the sight might then really become World Class.

There really is nothing to argue about. The M16 series has served the Free World pretty well, once the initial bugs were sorted out. It is definitely easier and better for the on average softer, more mediocre soldier of today to use in general issue. It is excellent for 80-90% of situations. Those "other" situations are why we need both 5.56 and 7.62 rifles, mixed in a squad.

The .30 caliber came about in a different time. But killing enemy soldiers as far away as possible, and penetrating cover, has not changed. Dominating a game is nice. But it proves nothing if the game is no longer relevant.

Let me propose "A Third Way". How about a new Service Match for M4s - with close and fast stages with movement on a 75 yard range, ending at 4-500 yards. Then a Long Range Match out to a thousand - designed for scope sighted, DMR type rifles. You could, of course, play either or both games. But it would bring the carbine skills into how the weapon is really used - and develop the scope sighted long range rifle at the same time. Just a thought. CC

PS - Just catching up with the most recent posts. Roadkingtrax, I have all of Mr. Crossman's books, and Hudson's before him, and am busy studying what was in order to become a better rifle shooter (with both old and new equipment - principles don't change). The Marines of 1918, just like the Flying Tigers of 1941, seem to have gotten more out of their equipment than anyone reasonably expects they could today. If the observed results don't fit your theory - your theory is wrong. They got the results, the math of the sight be damned. I am trying to understand that. Was it just good PR - or were they that good? There may be something else operating here - that isn't all explained by math. Long hours on the range with the same rifle has to be part of it. The machinery isn't the whole equation - we see different results with the exact same equipment all the time. Some abilities seem almost beyond belief, now. I am reminded of a recent, published account (if I find it I will put the link in) of a younger man who went to the range with his "Greatest Generation" WWII Battle of the Bulge veteran friend and several M1s. The old man handled them with ease and speed - and proceeded to quite deliberately ventilate some silhouette targets at 100 yards - FROM THE HIP. He did it several times, so it was not a parlor trick - but something he had learned to do quickly and effectively. Anyone here want to try that? I will close with a thoughtful little quote that will send my mechanistic correspondents here into fits:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

your philosophy ] i.e., philosophy (or learning) in general.

The emphasis here should be on "dreamt of", as Hamlet is pointing out how little even the most educated people can explain."

Borrowed from "Shakespeare Quick Quotes"...... CC

Your penpal, CC

Last edited by Col. Colt; 04-07-2014 at 04:06 PM. Reason: add "on average" and Hip Shooting comment.
  #115  
Old 04-07-2014, 03:28 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Colt View Post
I teach it and maintain it in a Law Enforcement (under 200 meters) context, and I would not chose anything else - in that context.
That makes sense. You know virtually nothing about the subject.

Quote:
And no US soldier has been issued an M4 or an M16A1-A4 with a float tube - sling use is somewhat of a problem without one.
False. Most, if not all of the rail systems on current rifles are floated. The SAM-R rifle is essentially a National Match AR. That last is a DIRECT translation of developments in competitive service rifle applied to combat. Just as the M21 rifle was a National Match M14 with a scope, basically.

Quote:
The issue round is not yet a 77 grain bullet, either - which helps extend the range, but probably would not fragment anyway.
False. The Mk262 ammunition is a direct application of 77grain SMK match loads to combat use.

Quote:
So what you do in competition does NOT translate well to the battlefield. That is not a positive virtue. The Warrior caste here just have a different opinion than the Gamesmen. It has been pointed out to me here we are "just talking about competiton". Some of us think military rifle competition should have some connection to battlefield reality.
The "Warrior caste" posting here used the M16 when it was first employed. That was a very long time ago. If the M1 had been rushed into combat use with Ordnance sabotaging it, WWII vets would have a similar opinion of it.

BTW, those of us who compete understand that it is marksmanship training, not combat training. It never was combat training. If you want connection to "battlefield reality", it won't look like a square gallery range and you will have a radio.

Quote:
It is definitely easier and better for the softer, more mediocre soldier of today to use in general issue.


Well, that makes your position pretty clear, doesn't it?

Last edited by missilegeek; 04-07-2014 at 03:37 PM.
  #116  
Old 04-07-2014, 04:41 PM
Col. Colt Col. Colt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 316
Default

If my information is outdated, I certainly want to know what is current issue. Colt still sells non-railed Civilian M4s, but that should change if it is now the Standard.

So you are saying that the standard, everyday troop issue is a railed, floated M4 (or M16A4) with an ACOG and everyone gets 77gr/Mk 262 ammo? I had not heard that everyone in the Service got such first class, updated stuff, but that is indeed encouraging if it has become so universal.

It still doesn't make a 5.56 into a 7.62 - but it would be notably better.

Today's soldier is a Volunteer, and that alone has my respect, make no mistake. And I am quite sure there are some very tough hombres in the ranks. But then, there always were.

But the rank and file troops are no longer made up with farm boys who have done physical labor and eaten farm fresh food their whole life. We are now an urban society, for better and for worse.

Heck, the DIs can't even shout at you anymore, as I understand it, and standards have been adjusted to take into account 5' 2" and 100 lbs. Seals and Special Forces have, as everyone knows, different and higher standards.

If stating the true state of things plainly is offensive, we are indeed in trouble. CC
  #117  
Old 04-07-2014, 04:53 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Colt View Post
If my information is outdated, I certainly want to know what is current issue. Colt still sells non-railed Civilian M4s, but that should change if it is now the Standard.
http://www.marines.com/operating-for...nt/weapons/m16

Note the rail. CMP even allows rails instead of the hidden float tube for SR.

What do Colt's commercial sales have to do with what they sell to the military?

Quote:
So you are saying that the standard, everyday troop issue is a railed, floated M4 (or M16A4) with an ACOG and everyone gets 77gr/Mk 262 ammo? I had not heard that everyone in the Service got such first class, updated stuff, but that is indeed encouraging if it has become so universal.
Not everyone gets Mk 262. Pretty much everyone is going to have a rail system, though.

Quote:
If stating the true state of things plainly is offensive, we are indeed in trouble. CC
It isn't and it's insulting.

Last edited by missilegeek; 04-07-2014 at 05:13 PM.
  #118  
Old 04-07-2014, 06:35 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,366
Default

Togor:

1. I'm confused- you talk about 7.92mm cartridges, comparing it the 5.56 cartridges. And based off that comparison, make comments about the M1903, which is 30-06, to the M16.

2. Roadkingtrax's quotes were not only referring to windage but elevation as well................

Col Colt:

At this point- I can safely sum this up............ You have no idea what you are talking about.

You have no idea why the M16 has dominated Service Rifle for the past 20+ yrs, you have no idea what is issued to who and why, you have no idea about ballistics or terminal ballistics for that matter, you have no idea what/how/who qualifies on what weapons.

You do seem able to quote Shakespeare though. And you seem able/willing to insult the current round of Veterans.

I'm sorry if Im not being clear- your information is outdated. (More correctly- you have NO information) So I have no idea why you continue to post about this subject.


Hold on a moment........... Are you or are you not a LE firearms instructor? You ignored my question last time I asked.

"I teach it and maintain it in a Law Enforcement (under 200 meters) context..........."

If you are....... Where? Because honestly you are doing a horrible disservice to your students being as ignorant as you are. Nevermind this whole 556/3006, M1903/M4 etc thing. You call yourself a LE Instructor and you don't know what the current rails systems are, who is making them and who is using them? Really? You have no idea who uses what optics and you are a LE Instructor? Really? You are a LE Instructor and you have no idea who uses what ammunition or why? Really?

Last edited by Gewehr43; 04-07-2014 at 07:09 PM.
  #119  
Old 04-08-2014, 02:21 AM
GGaskill GGaskill is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Arizona
Posts: 2,665
Default

I think this thread has served its purpose.
__________________
Only hits count.

"The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds."--Will Durant
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.