Marines with AKs

[kato13]

Abbott Shaull 03-24-2004, 11:54 AM Where about is this? In the Sunni Triangle? Then maybe it is for phsyo. effected if they get into a fight. I mean if I was the bad guy and started a fight. Then during it I heard the people fire back at me with weapons that they shouldn't be using...... Well would be lesson of the day.



Yet, anyways I would be wondering why Marine would be using AKs, too.


Abbott

********************

Sgt Biggles 03-29-2004, 02:03 PM While in Panama there were times when, due to ammunition shortages, we picked up an AK-47. I wasn't a marine but the same situation would apply. When you are in enemy controlled territory, you use what you can.


A broken weapon, ammo shortages or even conservation of your primary supplies may be reasons to use enemy weapons.


Just thoughts.



********************

Hatter 03-30-2004, 03:06 AM Folding stock versions of AKs are easier to use when you're a vehicle crewman than a M16. M4s may not be availible for all.

********************

Sgt Biggles 03-30-2004, 01:36 PM I've heard that. I carried the M4, for several years, though it was called a GAU-5. It was ok, but not my favorite. When we changed to the MP5's life was much better. What always killed me were units that carried the 9mm version of the M4. That is a total waste.


I always wondered why armored vehicle crewmen never got the MP5.

********************

James1978 03-30-2004, 06:04 PM Originally posted by Sgt Biggles

I've heard that. I carried the M4, for several years, though it was called a GAU-5. It was ok, but not my favorite. When we changed to the MP5's life was much better. What always killed me were units that carried the 9mm version of the M4. That is a total waste.


What type of unit were you in that you carried MP-5s? Who carried the 9mm M-4?

********************

Sgt Biggles 03-30-2004, 08:47 PM I was an Air Force Law Enforcement officer, attached to a Special Operations Group. I carried the M4 as a team leader and early in my career as a dog handler. We picked up the MP5 for deployment to Germany. I did a brief tour with U.S. Forces Police and was partnered with a German Police Liason officer and carried the MP5 then as well.


I'm told, I've been out of the service for about 8 years, the Air Force Security Force (what they call their cops now-adays) is considering the MP5 as the primary weapon for base security patrols. The PJ's and Combat Controllers use it allready.


For a very short time the AF PJ's tried the 9mm version out. I dont think it lasted a year. There are several civilian law enforcement agengies the still carry the 9mm version. For awhile it was very popular, though I never understood why. Perhaps because it was relatively inexpensive. Currently, most, most of the police agencies I am familiar with carry MP5's and the AR-15.

********************

Abbott Shaull 03-30-2004, 09:50 PM Gee, I haven't heard of the 9mm M4. I do recall the earlier version of the M4 called the CAR-15 which came in both 5.56mm and 9mm. They have been both used quite extensively in law enforcement both Civilian and Military as well as Special Ops.


I also believe before the M4 was adopted if I recall correctly the CAR-15 in 5.56mm version was tested in several Mechanized and Armored units for testing during the late 80s and early 90s. This helped in making choice to go with the adoption of the M4. Then again they have also brought out two new versions of the M16 into service.


Now the funny thing is I do recall recently reading several articles in which MP5s in most application with the US Military were being replaced by the various versions of M4s. The MP5s would only be used in close quarter combat.


As for the 9mm version of CAR-15 and/or M4(if they are made) I can see it in some respects as logical choice especially if 9mm is used also in the service pistol of the police agency/military unit. I mean it always easier to issue only one type of ammo, even if in the real life situations in which these weapons would be use would have been better suited to the 5.56mm. Hey, you have to love bean counters.


Abbott

********************

Abbott Shaull 03-30-2004, 10:08 PM Yes, I can understand the Armor crews picking up AKs with folded stocks. Especially in Iraq since there are days they maybe pulling patrols in their tanks and then the next day riding in Hummers. M4s not being readily handy. I can see this a problem especially in the National Guard Armored Battalion that will be rotated into Iraq.


Yes, even back when I was in the 82nd we were taught about the basics of the AK since being an Airborne we could be dropped very deep behind enemy lines. Well like they say when in Rome do as the Roman do.


Hey, just between you and me. Let's not let Mr Congressman and Mr Senator that there a military members in Iraq who may be using AKs due to lack of ammunition and the plentifulness of AK ammo. They may just vote not to send new Rotation armed at all and send them on scavenger hunts for AKs when they deploy....


Abbott

********************

Sgt Biggles 03-30-2004, 11:27 PM Originally posted by Abbott Shaull

Gee, I haven't heard of the 9mm M4. I do recall the earlier version of the M4 called the CAR-15 which came in both 5.56mm and 9mm. ....

..... recall recently reading several articles in which MP5s in most application with the US Military were being replaced by the various versions of M4s....

....logical choice especially if 9mm is used also in the service pistol of the police agency/military unit......

Abbott


In that you are right. I tend to lump the M4, CAR-15 and GAU-5 into the same boat. The GAU-5 was originally the XM-177E1 & E2 carbines. They had barrels ranging from 9 to 14 inches, no forward assist and no bayonet lug. The M4 picked up the slack in 1994?? or there abouts. To me, they are much the same as I was out of the service in '96. So there may not be, and probably isn't if you haven't heard of it, an M4 variant chambered for 9mm.


I hadn't heard of the MP5 being replaced with the M4. From what little I've heard the M4 performed badly in Afganistan(sp) and Iraq. The high pressure from the gas feeding, resulted in a faster rate of fire and a higher malfunction rate. The front end also tends to heat up very quickly. Having used the GAU in combat the statements made about the M4 ring true. So in a nut shell, maybe the M4 isn't the right weapon for the line soldier. Better for vehicle crews. Thats a guess on my part though.



Again I agree with the reasoning behind a service handgun and smg being chambered the same, which is one of the reasons the MP5 was picked up. If units are swapping it out for the M4 they are recreating a situation they tired to fix. Typical.



********************

ReHerakhte 04-10-2004, 06:31 AM G'Day all,

As a further comment on the whole M4 in Afghanistan thing, it's worth remembering that it's regarded that most combat occurs within about 200m and the M4 was designed with that in mind. In Afghanistan, much of the land is either fairly open or mountainous and in the relatively clear skies there, visual range far exceeds the range of the M4. You could see the enemy long before your weapons could effectively engage them. By the time the 5.56mm round out of an M4 hit the target at these extreme ranges, it had too little energy left to penetrate.

Similar situations have occured in other wars, Korea for example, where Commonwealth troops using 9mm SMGs at the extreme range of such weapons, found the rounds literally bouncing off the thick quilted winter clothing worn by the communist forces.

Both of these types of weapons (i.e. SMGs and Carbines) are intended for close range so lack of power at extreme ranges should not come as a surprise.


The second problem with the M4 was not so much the weapon as the ammunition. Specifically, the powder used, having been designed for a different climate, didn't burn as effectively and hence caused a loss of power so to speak (this is why you always see different entries given to the muzzle velocity of a specific weapon in books depending on where in the world it was written, e.g. the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle was used by both the UK and Australia but books written in Australia quote a different muzzle velocity than those written by a UK author, the ammo is still 7.62mm but different propellants are required for the cold, drier climate of the UK compared to the hot & humid climate in much of Australia so performance differs somewhat).


It's was considered at one time that the M4 would replace some (or most, can't remember exactly) of the M16A2 rifles in US Army service as it was figured that a longer range weapon wasn't needed so much in the types of wars the US was expected to get involved in. Considering the two most recent battlefields have a fair share of flat open country where you can see for miles, I wonder what the thinking is now!?



Rereading this I sound like a smart arse, apologies to all, I recently finished reading some accounts of the Aussie SASR in Afghanistan and the comments I made about range and powder are essentially taken from the article. Personally, I understand the desire for lighter weapons with lighter ammo but I still prefer a 7.62mm SLR!


Cheers,

Kevin

********************

Abbott Shaull 04-10-2004, 08:49 AM Good points, also I remember the M16 first couple years in Vietnam were joke. Troops were issue the weapon without cleaning kit, because the weapon didn't need to be clean.... That was until there complaints of rust and weapons that wouldn't cycle, so on and so on. Troops picking capture AKs to use. Ever weapon system may look and be the next greatest and thing. Yet, it is only when it tested in the real life and under varying conditions before it can lay claim to it.


Well like everything most of the information of where I read that the M4s was due to replace most MP5s in the US can probably be thrown out the window by now. This is mainly due to the reality that both Theathers of Operations have brought to light. Probably will be seeing many of the Marine, Airborne, and Air Assault small tactical units that have been switched from the M16A2 to the M4s exchanging some of them back to one of the two new flavors of the M16.


There is a reason why in some area of the World that you find most Armies still operating 7.62 mm as the standard type round from Rifle to MG and use there flavor of Pistol round for both Pistols and SMGs. Then again we do live in a society that doesn't always care in equiping people what the people who are doing the job really need to do it. It is one where we give them what we percieve as needed to do the job and expect them to accomplish it.


Abbott

********************

evilmike 04-26-2004, 02:04 AM Greetings from the Sandbox.



On why folks pick up folding stock AK's here.......


1) Scarcity of M4's.


Not really. More like, scarcity of M4/M16 cleaning kits.

In a desert environment (ok, ANY environment), the M16 series requires almost CONSTANT cleaning. The AK's are ALOT more forgiving, if not as accurate.


2) Range.


The M4 pretty much has identical range performance as the A2. One of my guys says its BETTER, and has the range qual scores to prove it.


3) Coolness.


Sad to say, this is the reason IMNSHO. To all US crunchies, anything that is different from the M16 is automatically 'cooler'.


4) Covertness.


Another big reason. You use an AK to shoot up folks, they can't (usually) trace it back to US forces. The downside to this is that when US forces hear AK fire, we consider the shooters to be 'bad guys'. NOT a good thing. You might have a fire mission called down on yer head if you aren't careful......


And in regards to engagement ranges........yeah, 7.62mm is the way to go in the Great Wide Open. Which is why us Marine types still have M60's, thank Ghu...


BTW, the AK-47 fires an underpowered round, not as powerful as 7.62mm NATO, and has crappier accuracy...and range...than the M16A2.


Altho at ranges under 100 meters, you do NOT want to get hit by it.


Well, actually, you don't wanna get hit by it period, truth be told.

********************

Andy-Shot 04-26-2004, 06:48 AM In reference to engaging the enemy at ranges over 200m with a M-4, M16 or whatever.


Why.


If you are at that type of range hold what you got, prone out, and call in an arty strike.

********************

TiggerCCW UK 04-26-2004, 07:38 AM "If you are at that type of range hold what you got, prone out, and call in an arty strike."


I'm not in the desert, but heres my take on why you might not just call in artillery support.


Sometimes the situation just doesn't warrant that kind of response. What if its only a couple of guys engaging you? What if they are near a populated or otherwise sensitive area? Heavy firepower is not always the answer!

********************

Andy-Shot 04-26-2004, 09:38 PM You can get a gunship to lay waste to a group of guys and not scratch the paint on a car across the street.


Im not talking about having 155mm howitzer rounds dropped on targets, there are more flexible options out there.


If your going to stay still long enough to trade shots with an enemy 325 meters off, your wasting time

********************

evilmike 04-26-2004, 11:30 PM Well, Andy, sometimes the arty and the air isn't available.


You go with what you got.


It's nice to have the nice toys, but you can't count on them being there 24/7....which is where the training comes in.


As a personal note, my boys have successfully engaged enemy forces out to 500 meters with the M4, and gotten hard target kills.


So don't believe everything you read.


We Marines emphasize marksmanship alot more than the Army, tho, so I can't speak for how the Army guys do it.

********************

Andy-Shot 04-27-2004, 12:44 AM I didnt mean to portray that it cant be done (engaging targets at distance), but for an average encounter trading long distance shots with iron sights (as most standard issue GI's are issued) is not the most effective means for engagement.

If your in a open setting and attacking an objective, some form of support is going to be available.

If your engaging in a more urban/broken terrain and the enemy is that far off, flanking/manuervering and adjustment of forces will get you more effective results.

********************

evilmike 04-28-2004, 05:57 AM Regarding your last 2 sentences, Andy......


In a perfect world, Andy, in a perfect world.


Sure, most of the time, you are correct........but as more and more unit commanders are discovering out here, nothing beats being able to reach out and touch someone at 600-800 meters.....

********************

Andy-Shot 04-28-2004, 01:52 PM 600 meters? Maximum effectie range for a M16A2 (with a 20 inch barrell) is between 300-500 meters without optic assistance and depending on shooter skill.


The M-4's/CAR-15's with a shorter barrel have less effective range than the M16A2, but I find is much lighter and therefore I get better accuracy because I dont fatigue as quick.


Artillery or air support isnt always available to the troops at every given moment, the suggest or assume the same is stupid. However, there are support assets available, even if it does take some time to deploy them. If you call for it, it will come. That is what makes us so potent, and why we can amass so many kills while receiving so little.


Taking pot shots at targets you can barely see is a waste of ammo, and if I saw someone doing it that would be get a ass chewing before the casing hit the ground. The effective range of the AK is no where near the effective range of the M16 so there isnt much danger and all you are doing is drawing attention to yourself and those around you. If the target is static, then there is no threat and you can engage at your leisure. However, engaging at some insane distance is only going to attract the attention of say that guy who is much closer, who hasnt spotted you yet but just heard your muzzle report, and YOU havent spotted yet.


If there is an enemy, 400 or so meters off, and you cant advance on him for some reason; classic example of a need for ordinance. If you dont have an assets available for whatever reason, then you better stay mobile because if you stop to engage everything you MIGHT hit or POSSIBLY could hit your going to get bogged down and surrounded.


And being surrounded without asssets means your dead.

********************

TiggerCCW UK 04-29-2004, 04:21 AM I'm not arguing about basic ranges for an M16, because its a weapon that I am not overly familiar with, but I know that we regularly trained with the SA-80/L85A1 at ranges out to 800m.

********************