February 22, 2007
When the Deceptive and Uninformed Attack
The liberal blog The Carpetbagger Report has a post up this morning entitled They don’t even have the right rifles, in which the author laments over National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers being re-deployed without enough time between deployments and without the right equipment.
The post is based upon this article in today's New York Times.
Now, it is perhaps deceptive enough that the blog dowdified the quote it chose to feature from the Times article to leave out certain critical information that David S. Cloud felt was important enough to dedicate the second paragraph of the article to—namely that a final decision had not been made to re-deploy these soldiers—but the blog then focused the rest of its post on lamenting that the soldiers don't have the "right" rifles.
Unlike the Carpetbagger Report treatment of the Times article, I'll provide you with their full rifle-related original commentary:
As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s the equipment problem weighing heavily on the military. Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, told the NYT that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.Think about that — National Guard troops are training for another quick deployment, but some of these soldiers don’t even have the right rifles yet. Body armor and Humvee protection is one thing, but Guard troops don’t have the rifles they want?
It’s unfortunately part of a trend.
The Politico reported today that military officials have given lawmakers “a long list of equipment and reconstruction needs totaling nearly $36 billion, denied earlier by the administration in its $481 billion defense appropriations request for the new fiscal year.”The Army and Marine Corps say they need more than 5,000 armored vehicles, another $153 million for systems that defend against the deadly improvised explosive devices in Iraq and $13 million in language translation systems.
In an annual exercise initiated by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the military service chiefs were asked to forward spending priorities for the new 2008 fiscal year that either Pentagon budget planners or White House budget officials struck from the services’ original requests. Lawmakers use the list to gauge where military commanders see shortfalls and to justify additions to the appropriations. […]
The Army’s $10.3 billion list includes $2.2 billion for 2,500 special vehicles to better protect troops against roadside bomb attacks.
Murtha’s “readiness strategy” is premised on the argument that troops with inadequate training and equipment shouldn’t be sent to Iraq. With this in mind, expect today’s reports to play a big role in the congressional debate. I can’t wait to hear to hear war supporters argue that National Guard troops who currently don’t even have the right rifles should be deployed anyway.
Now that we've heard the complaint about having the "right" rifles, let's take a look at exactly what we're discussing.
This is the M4 carbine:
The most common variant is chambered to shoot 5.56X45mm NATO ammunition out of a 14.5" barrel, has a 14.5" sight radius, and has a multi-position collapsible stock. It weighs in at 5.9 lbs (empty). Bullets leave the barrel at 2,900 ft/sec and generate 1645 joules of energy at the muzzle (Data from Colt Weapons Systems).
The M4 is the weapon many soldiers prefer for its compactness, lower weight, and adaptability.
This is the M16 rifle:
The most common variant is chambered to shoot 5.56X45mm NATO ammunition out of a 20" barrel, has a 19.75" sight radius, and has a fixed stock. It weighs in at 7.5 lbs (empty). Bullets leave the barrel at 3,100 ft/sec and generate 1765 joules of energy at the muzzle (Data from Colt Weapons Systems).
This combat-proven basic configuration and its updates have been the primary combat rifle for the American military for four decades.
Now, the Carpetbagger Report has somehow determined, using some leap of illogic, that the "preferred" M4 is the "right rifle," though how they came to that conclusion is never explained.
The operating mechanisms, rate of fire (700-950 rounds per minute) and ammunition of these two weapons are nearly identical; the primary difference between the two weapons is the barrel of the M4 is 5.5" (27.5%) shorter than that of the M16.
The shorter barrel length and overall shorter weapon length of the M4 (also due to the multi-position collapsible stock) of the M4 makes the weapon extremely popular ("preferred") by many of our soldiers, as does it's lighter weight. But many does not mean all, and it does not mean right, and that shorter weapon has some serious drawbacks, among them, a serious lack of "stopping power."
Without getting to bogged down in the technical aspects, the M16 and M4 issued to our military use the standard 5.56x45 NATO round; the 5.56 being a militarized, higher pressure/higher velocity version of the .223 Remington cartridge. The .223 Remington is , as Wikipedia correctly notes, a slightly enlarged and higher velocity version of the .222 Remington.
What is the primary avocation of the .222 and .223 Remington rounds?
Shooting creatures like these guys:
As you may well imagine, a cartridge developed from a family of cartridges designed to shoot small, lightly-armored woodland creatures has developed a reputation as having problems stopping much larger and occasionally armored humans. That problem is compounded in shorter-barrelled weapons such as the M4:
There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. Typically, this only becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 meters) but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch barrel of the U.S. military's M4 Carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is extremely effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk to bystanders when used at close range. However, if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a target is greatly reduced.
I've spoken with several soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg shortly after they returned from deployments to Iraq, and the lack of stopping power of the M4 was a significant complaint. On soldier I spoke with had just completed a tour in Ramadi, and mentioned that he had shot one insurgent in the chest three times as he advanced, and it took a fourth shot to the head to finally end the threat. He was armed with an M4, and despised the weapon’s poor stopping power.
Also armed with the M4 were the soldiers of the "Deuce Four" Stryker Brigade Michael Yon wrote about in Gates of Fire, where:
Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man's abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser.
Prosser then engaged the man in heated hand-to-hand combat before finally prevailing over a man he'd already shot four times. The terrorist, 50% less fertile than before, was captured, and survived his wounds.
The simple fact of the matter is that the M4 may be "preferred" by some troops, but because of its record of dubious stopping power, it is not the favorite of all, leading to some soldiers preferring the M16, while others prefer modernized variations of the Vietnam-era M14 battle rifle. Because of the M4's anemic stopping power, there has been rushed special operations development of more powerful cartridges for elite forces, including the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendal, and the .50 Beowulf, to pick up where the 5.56 M4 falls short.
Clearly, there is a huge gap between "preferred" and "right," and millions of dollars have been poured into the development of weapons and cartridges precisely because many in the military community feel that the M4 is not the "right" rifle as the Carpetbagger Report argues from a position of ignorance.
Is there a desire in the miltary to use hollow-point rounds similar to those in the domestic police forces ...I'd assume a HP 5.56mm would have more "stopping" power." Was it the Geneva convention that outlawed HP rounds? What is the reason?
Posted by: William at February 22, 2007 02:31 PMThis is just another case of DIS-Information by the bleeding heart liberals, I personally own both versions of that weapon and Yankee is right on the mark. M-4 aka "Shorty" is no different than the full sized M-16 same ammo, same result other than the longer barreled M-16 is a little more accurate. My personal favorite is the 7.62 NATO/308 Win. one shot one kill round. The only draw back is that it requires a little heavier weapon and the additional weight of the ammo the service member has to carry. New model SOG SOCOM M1A1 is chambered in the PREFERRED 308WIN. Is absolutely AWSOME... And for those who don't know jack about weapons and ammo here is a little lesson. AK-47's and all of its derivitives shoot the same ammo 7.62X 39 or 7.62X 54 in the drugunov sniper rifle. The preffered weapon of our enemy. As far as I am concerned this is a dead issue that is trying to be politicized by individuals that that are absolutely clueless.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 22, 2007 02:47 PMI called and spoke with CPT Heathscott. He informed me that they would all have M-4s by the time they deployed, that they currently have as many as they need for training purposes, and the reason they are missing the equipment they have is because they left equipment in Iraq for the unit that replaced them after their last deployment.
Posted by: Tony B at February 22, 2007 03:58 PMWilliam,
FM 27-10 THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE
Chapter 2 Section 3 - Forbidden means of waging warfare
34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)
b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.
This sounds more like weapon snobbery than anything else. When my unit went to Kuwait, we made a big stink because we had 19 officers and only 10 assigned M9s Berettas. That meant one Major, all the Captains and our single Lieutenant all had to suffer the indignity of carrying M16s.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 22, 2007 04:29 PMThis gets back to the age-old debate: would our troops be better off with a round that has more stopping power, yet is heavier and thus more cumbersome to carry around in the same quantity? What round would be ideal, 5.56mm or 7.62mm or something in-between perhaps? Any opinions?
Posted by: mike at February 22, 2007 06:35 PMOpinion?
6lbs. 200 rounds per minute. 200 round mag. Remington .308 accurate at 400 meters.
Priceless. Also impossible.
Posted by: RiverRat at February 22, 2007 08:49 PM"Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team ... also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers."
According to a DoD talking head on TV the other night, this is because they don't schlep the heavy stuff back and forth. The unit will pick up artillery in theater.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 22, 2007 08:55 PMI never deny it when your right about something, Owens, and your right on with this post. To bad you couldn't have been more on target with your critique of Campos's thrashing of Instapundit...
Posted by: Frederick at February 22, 2007 09:13 PMThe 5.56 is a crap round. Too light, not enough energy on target. The 7.62/308 is overkill. I understand that the Army is experimenting with a 6.5mm now.
Seems we won a certain war using the .30-06 though.
THEY could haul the ammo. Why not these kids, now??
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at February 22, 2007 09:37 PMI am not endorsing this show. Just reporting on it.
Modern Marvels:The M-16.
The most powerful assault rifle ever used in combat, the M-16 became the symbol of our lost war--Vietnam--and can easily be called America's most unloved gun. Yet, 30 years after its introduction, it stands as a potent icon of U.S. military strength worldwide. We'll explain how it almost ended up on the scrap heap!
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 22, 2007 09:42 PMThe 5.56 is a crap round. Too light, not enough energy on target. The 7.62/308 is overkill. I understand that the Army is experimenting with a 6.5mm now.
Seems we won a certain war using the .30-06 though.
THEY could haul the ammo. Why not these kids, now??
Two Main Reasons.
1. We use the tactics of massive supression w/ fire and manuver. It takes a lot of rounds.
2. We carry a lot of weight. It's really hard to overstate how much crap there is to carry. Yeah the old troopers carried 30 cals, but they didn't carry interceptor armor with SAPI plates, nvgs, and all the usefull odds and ends. It's very easy to fall into the "Well, you can carry one more thing" trap.
Posted by: brando at February 23, 2007 01:22 AM
I'm not a soldier, but I am a proud owner of an M-4 derivative. The one thing in favor of the 5.56 round that I don't think can be overstated is the lack of recoil. While a 30-06 is not a hard kicking round, for today's gun (well rifle anyway) inexperienced recruit, it can feel like a ton of recoil. I hunt with a 300 Win Mag and would NOT want that in a firefight, because after a dozen or so shots, you really feel the recoil, and I shoot often. Someone with little rifle experience might feel the recoil of a 30-06 and be totally inaccurate after the first shot. 7.62 has the same problem. Ultimately, unless you shoot very often, like the SOF, you want something easy to shoot that you can shoot a lot, since you probably are not as good of a shot and will need to fire many rounds. Regular Army units do not get enough time on the range, and while this certainly needs to be improved, a compromise between stopping power (bullet weight) and ease of shooting is not all that bad. It might not be the best thing out there, but the 5.56 is a capable round in the hands of a novice and that is a big plus in its corner.
Posted by: scipio at February 23, 2007 01:56 AMGreat post and comments. But, now the lefties may argue Bush and Rummy selected the wrong rifles for all Army needs. It would be just like them.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at February 23, 2007 09:25 AMWhen I was deployed with my Reserve unit to Iraq in August 2004 we went with only an M9 pistol issued. I started the first several trips of over 180 convoys in a Chevy Suburban with a borrowed AK 47 as my weapon.
As soldiers, we had an amazing ability to make due with the tools at hand. The Guard and Reserve have been doing that for years in innovative training, management, operations - much of which was due to significant funding shortfalls at the hands of DOD. Soldiers make due, work to improve their situation and impliment any improvements as they go. They are vaery adaptive to adjutsting to the requirements with the tools at hand.
The Arkansas Guard is doing the prudent thing - they are identifing the desired state for equipment...will work with what they obtain and will soldier as always.
By the way - the best rifle is the HK 416 that SOCOM is using - much better and reliable - however not a standard issue rifle and a foreign manufacturer.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Jawa Report has this story this morning of the suicide bomber at the hospital dressed as a doctor from Afghanistan. I think its relevant.
"As ANP forces chased the suspect, Coalition forces verbally instructed him to stop. When he did not, they engaged with small arms fire, hitting the bomber several times. A U.S. Soldier wrestled him to the ground, restraining him long enough to allow the crowd of people to move safely away. He was able to break free from the bomber prior to the explosion. He sustained only minor injuries from the blast."
Hard to say from the situation, but one might think that having to wrestle a suicider to the ground AFTER he's been shot several times would be unnecessary.
No civilians were injured and a couple soldiers suffered relatively minor injuries.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 23, 2007 11:49 AMI work for the Army (NOT in Public Affairs, so here are a few facts:
- The big stuff (mortars, artillery, etc.) is kept in Iraq and rotated between units. If the ANG guy is saying that they don't have equipment to train on, that is one thing, but they do have the tools to fight when they get there.
- Troops prefer to carry the M4 because of the collapsible stock. The M16 was invented before the advent of body armor and you can't get a good sight picture while wearing armor. I know some Vietnam vets (I am from that era, myself) will point out that we had the old Kevlar flak vest, but the M16 was invented before that item.
- Heard all the "can't hit sh*t" and "won't penetrate sh*t" arguments. All true. Doesn't mean anything since DOD is more interested in buying fancy airplanes and ships than new rifles. In the Army, we prioritize body armor and armored trucks/HMMWVs before new guns. Sorry, guys. That is the priority and we are sticking with it.
- Lots of troops carry and use AK-47's on patrol. Not precisely kosher, but the local commander makes that call.
"Lots of troops carry and use AK-47's on patrol."
I wouldn't use the term lots. IMHO, local commanders may allow it, but I think it shows a lack of unit dicipline. What self-respecting NCO would carry an AK if his troops had M4s. What does that say about having faith in your equipment?
As a proud CarpetBaggerReport regular, I found this article incredibly well-written and the comments fascinating. I think CY is right: "preferred" does not mean right, although he could have made that point without spillng so much bile; and Mike and Bohica also make excellent points. There's a discussion of this issue in the book "Blackhawk Down" that was very interesting, where the soldiers in Somalia preferred shotguns to M-16s (I think) because the M-16s were too powerful, the bullets passing through the enemy, whereas the shotguns dropped them in their tracks.
Posted by: angry young man at February 27, 2007 12:49 PMAngry again you show your ignorance or shall I say your lack of understanding of military weaponry and tactics. A shot gun is used at relative close range and has the capability of disabling a couple of people at the same time. It is not about the speed of the round it's about the diameter of the projectile that gives you the "Nock Down" power that the soldier's are talking about. Why do you think law enforcement changed from the 9mm to the 40mm. again stick to something that your good at. What ever that is?
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 1, 2007 09:47 AM
