M4 Vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?

In WWII and Korea, the US Army and Marine Corps carried .30 caliber rifles. The M-1 Garand fired the 30-06 using a 180 grain bullet. Rifles of the era and before where based on hunting calibers. The British Enfield fired the .303 British another devastating round with both range and stopping power.

In the 1960s, the US Army started using the M-14 which fires the .308 Winchester (7.62mm). The 7.62mm fires a 180 grain bullet but has a shorter cartridge length than the 30-06.

The M-14 took advantage of this and had a much shorter action than the M-1 Garand and is able to use a 20 round box magazine.

The problem is with a 20 round magazine, the M-14 was heavy and carrying it around in the steaming jungles of Vietnam was extremely tiring. The result was a move to a lighter rifle that still could carry 20 rounds and hence the adoption of the M-16.

The shorter ranges faced by jungle warfare suited the .223 (5.56mm). It fires a 55 grain bullet making the M-16 one of the lightest rifles American forces have ever carried. A combination of light weight and recoil buffering spring allow even the most timid shooter the ability to shoot decent groupings with the M-16.

The first M-16s were plagued with stoppages. The harsh jungle conditions had not been factored into the initial design. Numerous modifications came along to improve reliability. However, what did not change was the lack of stopping power of the 5.56mm compared to the .308.

By the time the war in Vietnam was over, the M-16 had become the standard issue rifle of all branches of the US military. The military has selective memory and though the record of the M-16 in Vietnam was still in question, its cost and ease of shooting won over any doubts.

The M-16 would be used in every conflict proceeding Vietnam.

In Desert Storm and Somalia, there continued to be reports of poor stopping power and reliability issues (the sand in Iraq and Kuwait is like powder and could seize the action).

The insurgents in Somalia were hopped up on khat and the 5.56mm Teflon coated roads would pass through the target seemingly without effect. (The Teflon rounds had been adopted as a means of defeating light armor.)

Iraq and Somalia were the first widespread urban warfare encountered by US forces. The result was a call for a shorter version of the standard M-16 resulting in the M-4. Yet again the US military adopts a specialized weapon as the standard issue.

The shorter barrel of the M-4 means less muzzle velocity putting the already light 5.56mm round, and hence servicemember, at a disadvantage.

Unlike Iraq, US servicemembers in Afghanistan aren't always engaged in urban warfare. Often they are in the mountains where targets would have to be engaged at 300 meters or longer distances. The short-barreled M-4 with the shorter and the 55 grain 5.56mm combination are just not designed for such situations.

Now the US Army is going back to the drawing table to design another rifle/caliber combination to answer the problems in Afghanistan. The old school solution of the Afghanis is to use WWII or older era rifles chambered for hunting rounds. These give them long range rifles with tremendous stopping power. A soldier or Marine armed with the M-4 is at an extreme disadvantage in terms of range and stopping power.

Instead of one size fits all, it seems to me units need to have a combination of M-4 and M-16 sized rifles. I really like the 7.62mm but realize the muzzle blast in a short barreled rifle of that caliber would be tremendous in close quarters.

The compromise seems to be something like the 6.5 Grendel. The round has terrific weight to velocity ratio allowing it to serve as a long range rifle as well as an assault rifle. Hopefully the decision will be more towards a flexible response rather than trying to make a one size fits all.



FOXNews.com - M4 Vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?

Posted using ShareThis