Iraq-1

[1776]

From a friend on duty

3 Nov
A Marine's Eye-View of Iraq
All Hands:

Mel Lett sends a Sitrep from a Marine friend named Jordon in Iraq. I was
going to "clean it up" a bit, but then decided I would leave it as is. If
the language offends anyone on the All Hands, let me know and I will delete
you.

There is a full evaluation of the weapons available to our troops and the
enemy. I personally could never understand why DoD decided to go from a .30
caliber round to a .22 caliber. The most coveted round in combat these days
is the Browning Machine Gun (BMG), 50 caliber, and the weapons to fire it.
This round was developed in 1919, just after WW I, and technology has not
come up with a better round yet. Jordon says "thumbs, way ,way, up" for the
M-2 Browning Machine Gun. This weapon is 87 years old.

The M-14, a .308 caliber rifle, which was replaced by the M-16, the .223
caliber, in the middle of the Vietnam war, is being re-issued to Special
Operations troops. In my humble opinion, and the opinion of Sgt Maj Russ
Rockwell, the M-1 and the M-14 are the only weapons, issued to US troops,
where we had the enemy "outgunned."

The Model Colt 1911 A-1, the handgun most troops want to carry, was
developed in 1911. the Beretta that is issued now is a 9 mm or .35 caliber.
the 1911 A-1 is a .45 caliber round. This weapon is 95 years old.

In the final paragraphs of this Sitrep, this Marine says most troops in the
desert think the American press is against them. No one in the media
reports that our military has a 20-1 kill ratio, and no one in the media
ever reports on enemy losses.

Thanks and Semper Fi, Mel,

From: Mel LETT
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: On the Scene Report from Iraq--a Follow-on Weapons Evaluation

----- Subject: FW: On the Scene Report from Iraq--a Follow-on Weapons
Evaluation

Just had this email from a guy who is still there ....No politics here, just
a Marine with a bird's eye view opinion:

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 it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming
problems also. 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 can't be reliably counted on to
put the enemy down.


Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents show a high level of opiate
use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine
gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic
jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly (that's fun in
the middle of a firefight).

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.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for
clearing houses to good effect.

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.

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. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the
HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's
are being re-issued en masse.

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.

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.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win
mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. 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 Hathcock's record
for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

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. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the
summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes
for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the "old" body
armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED
explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in
most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular
performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very
little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being
whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen
the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are
Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban
operations.

Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it. I cant
help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50
or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology,it's the WWII and
Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is
frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:
1) Mostly AK47's . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the
desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed
light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy
mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire.
However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper
rifles. (Iran, again)



Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of
our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school
that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in
close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they
know better now.

2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple,
reliable and as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our up-armored
Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still
killing a lot of our guys.

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 Jordan's
area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery
shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the
explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately,
they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically
designed to penetrate armor.



Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also
providing terrorists
(Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's
why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are
ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray
painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all
Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal
guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm rockets
(with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of Jordan's NCO's
lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire".
Jordan's base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and
rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and
cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else.
The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and
then haul ass in a matter of seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by
cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld
GPS units for navigation and "Googleearth" for overhead views of our
positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their
explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is rare.
They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and
laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Continued on Iraq-2

 

[1776]

Iraq-2

Continued from Iraq-1

Who are the bad guys (remember that is what the Captain called them!)? Most
of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly
in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly "foreigners",
non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe).
Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity
of the Syrian govt.), and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail
of towns along the EuphratesRiver that we've been hitting hard for the last
few months.
Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide
bombers or in "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard core terrorists
from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.). These are
the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off.
The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless
and the best fighters (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In
the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and
led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating
the Iraqi local govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. They have had a
massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early
80's. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long
ago.

Bad Guy Tactics:
When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every
time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common
earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man
teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AK's and RPG's
directly at our bases just to probe the defenses.
They get mowed down like grass every time (see the M2 and M240 above).
Jordan's base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a tendency
to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a
glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that
more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey
Romeo's (Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing
down to a science. The fast mover's, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an
ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the
helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with
cannon and rocket fire, especially at night.
Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all.

Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That
is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide
bomber shit. The new strategy is simple: attrition. The insurgent tactic
most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They
know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools,
hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for
attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have
absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will
terrorize locals and murder without
hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new
Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to
influence people they are trying to influence but can't reach, such as local
govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.). The first thing our guys
are told is "don't get captured". They know that if captured they will be
tortured and beheaded on the internet.
Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American
serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a
shit about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped
by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight
is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqi's are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a damn.
Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are
getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers,
en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.
Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the
police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an
exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi's are sick of the
insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and
fearless fighters.

According to Jordan, morale among our guys is very high. They not only
believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are
stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they
almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are
despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate
of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print
media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and
leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough
guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency,
primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the
borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand
the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US
bases there).

Anyway, that's it, hope you found it interesting.

 

[TonyD]

Very interesting. Just wondering when Marines began using the M24?

 

[MegaPlinker]

Great post. Its nice to here a frontline perspective for a change. The preference for older weapons is especialy interesting.

 

[calsdad]

I believe that evaluation might be a year or two old - I do remember reading the same thing earlier this year on a different website. Interesting comments about the weapons though - sounds like the M-16 platform is still winning detractors. After I buy my screw you deval AR I guess I should put an M1A on the list of must gets.

 

[number9]

Hasn't that "evaluation" been debunked as something like 95% bullshot?

 

[reinbeau]

Hasn't that "evaluation" been debunked as something like 95% bullshot?

I'm sure it has by all of the unbiased media out there - that you seem to be listening to

Do you really read what these guys on the front lines say? Or do you take all your cues from ABC/CBS/NBC Nightly News?

 

[bpm990d]

Hasn't that "evaluation" been debunked as something like 95% bullshot?

Yes

 

[dwarven1]

I seem to remember seeing this a couple of years ago... and I, too, remember seeing it debunked. Mostly by service & ex-service people.

IIRC, it was on THR or TFL. Something like that.

Ross

 

[drgrant]

Man this piece of tripe is circulating again?

I've read it more than once, and every time it sounds like it's of
somewhat dubious origin. While some of it sounds legitimate, some of it
just seems pretty bizarre. (eg, why the hell would insurgents need
guns from iran? iraq is pretty much awash with weapons for whoever
has the cash (or will to steal them).

-Mike

 

[Jose]

The fact that this "Marine" fawns over the M24 sniper rifle tells me all I need to know to throw a huge BS flag on the field.

Even this squid knows the M24 Sniper Weapon System is an Army weapon procured directly from Remington and that the Marine Corps uses the M40A1 and M40A3 sniper rifles made by the Precision Weapons Section of the USMC Weapons Training Battalion based at MCB Quantico, VA.

Marines are justifiably proud of the WTB/PWS built rifles and they would never confuse the M40s with a factory made rifle, much less an Army one.

 

[Jose]

Very interesting. Just wondering when Marines began using the M24?

You too noticed.....

 

[jamz]

This is like the seventh time I've seen the exact same report.

 

[TonyD]

You too noticed.....

Once a Marine...

I just didn't want to call BS on it, yet.

 

[number9]

I'm sure it has by all of the unbiased media out there - that you seem to be listening to

Do you really read what these guys on the front lines say? Or do you take all your cues from ABC/CBS/NBC Nightly News?

Give me a break. Did I say I saw it on the news? Nay.

The article talks about a drum-fed M243, when in fact what they mean is a belt-fed M249 SAW. The Marines don't use the Mossbergs in much quantity, they use Benelli 1014s. And since when do insurgents use .308-chambered AKs?

I wouldn't trust the media on what guns are working where any more than I'd trust a used-car salesman on what kind of home loan I should get.

 

[PatMcD]

The weapons evaluation is where I started to have questions about it's authenticity. Just sounds WAY too much like the same ".30 cal is for men and .223 is for girls and girly men" crap you read on some gun forums.

Also, does the govt. still have stockpiles of 1911A1's?

 

[TonyD]

The Marines don't use the Mossbergs in much quantity, they use Benelli 1014s. And since when do insurgents use .308-chambered AKs?

Please eloborate on your extensive knowledge of Marine Corps weaponry.

Yes, the AK IS a .308 chambered weapon. 7.62X39 to be exact.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Number9 most Iraqi's have AK's. Alan said you could buy them for like 100.00 dollars over there.

 

[number9]

Please eloborate on your extensive knowledge of Marine Corps weaponry.

Yes, the AK IS a .308 chambered weapon. 7.62X39 to be exact.

My knowledge isn't extensive, but I'm not supposedly a Marine writing about what weapons are being used in-country. I would expect one that is to know how to correctly identify a SAW, which is why I think this "report" (which I have seen a bunch of times before under different guises) wasn't written by a Marine, or certainly not one serving at the moment. A lot of flaws have been pointed out in it by people a lot smarter than me, which leads me to believe that it is somewhat of a hoax.

MrsWW: Yeah, I've heard a lot of reports of what Alan is saying and I don't doubt them. But isn't an AK technically chambered in 7.62x39 like Tony says, not just ".308"? It all comes back to the credibility of the article...

 

[number9]

I found this somewhere:

Subject: Great info from Iraq
Quote:
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. PS: I played with/shot an M4 a whole bunch at LeJune about 5 years ago...I think they are more prevalant than this statement leads you to believe-Chris

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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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....

 

[number9]

And the rest of it:

Quote:
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of ????. 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,

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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 stocks currently in use is made of kevlar.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, its the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
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:
Quote:
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...........

Quote:
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. I notice that these reports from the front always seem to come from a Marine. Every Marine or former Marine I've been privileged to know or serve with no matter what his rank, knew more basic information about his weapons then whoever wrote this.


This much better reading, and more accurate, if anyone's interested in how weapons performed in OIF: http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

As for the M1911A1 .45 Auto: Even though I enjoy shooting the SA 1911A1 I bought my dad a few years ago, and may even buy one myself when I return, the M1911/M1911A1 pattern pistol is not suitable as a general issue combat weapon. Yep I said it. Too maintenance intensive, and too many people cannot shoot it well. The .45ACP catridge is a great performer with ball ammunition, but something like the HK USP, Glock or S&W New M&P design would be a better platform for widespread issue.

 

[iodonnel]

+1 for this post, very interesting read!

 

[number9]

Apologies for the hard-to-read formatting, but it should be easy to tell the original email from whomever's reply I was quoting.

 

[Jose]

Guys, this "report" is 100% USDA Choice bull shit.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Oh, I know. I've seen it around before.

 

[Wildweasel]

just to clarify on the commen ak caliber, yes it is 7.62x39 but if you reload for it it uses a .308 bullet. thats what was being said (by Tony anywho.) the report is BS for the most part. If I could get My son to sit down for a bit and write one up I could verify it.. lol

 

[1776]

M40 & M24

This may not be as detailed as the excellent comments and their technical content, but lets try digging a little deeper on the M40 and the M24 rifles.

Both are based on the R700 actions. The USMC began as Rem 40XB model with updates, chambered for the .308 Win. and strong enough for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. Ten years later, their armorers at Quantico MCB updated the old ones and built additional new ones from components including actions from Remington and other contractors for other misc. parts. The Army wanted to use the long action version as they would ultimately consider the .300 Win. cartridge. They also later considered the .338 for a little more potency. In both cases, most are chambered for the 7.62mm NATO round.

Marine Corps - M40 - 1966
US Army - M24 - 1988

Boil all this BS down to the following (if you're a knowledgeable high-power shooter):
Marine Corps chose the Remington short action
The Army chose the long action
Both are from the Remington 700 series of rifles (ala 40X precision variants)
Scopes, sights, stocks and other stuff are just parts added on to the actions. I don't think the USMC or the Army would choose crappy parts.

Sooooo, what's all this "huge BS flag" all about? They are REMINGTON 700's. They are the same rifles!

M40 Description
Caliber: 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Win)
Length: 1117mm (M40A1)
Weight: 4.08 kg empty w/o scope; 6.57 kg complete weapon
Barrel Length: 660mm (M40); 610mm (M40A1)
Magazine Capacity: 5 rounds in detachable box magazine
Sight: Redfield 3-9X (M40); Unertl 10x with Mil-Dots and BDC (M40A1)
Stock: Remington one piece wooden (M40); McMillan fiberglass (M40A1)
Max Effective Range: 800 meters

After beginning of the Vietnam war, US Marine corps decided to purchase some bolt action sniper rifles. In April, 1966, Remington offered to US MC its sniper rifle, built in the Remingtons' custom shop on Model 40XB target rifle action (target tuned model 700 action with heavy barrel). Initially, 800 rifles were offered under the designation of the M40 Sniper Rifle. Total of 995 M40 were built by Remington for US MC. Original M40s were built on Remingtons' model 700BDL actions, with one piece wooden stocks.
In the 1970's, when initial M40s began to wear out, US MC began to rebuild its inventory into M40A1 configuration. M40A1 built around the same 700BDL actions, but with different stocks (polymer, by McMillan bros), and with the different scope. M40A1s are built in Quantico by qualified US MC armourers from parts supplied by Remington (actions), Winchester (magazine floorplate) and other contractors.
M40s were used in Vietnam and in later companies with great success, proved itself reliable and deadly accurate weapons.

M24 History
Introduced in 1988 as the Army's designated sniper weapon system, the M24 SWS the first bolt action rifle to see dedicated service with the US Army since the .30-06 caliber Springfield Model 1903. With the withdrawal of the Springfield 03 during the Second World War, all army sniping activities have been carried out, more or less, with either scoped regular-issue rifles (in the case of the M1C and M1D) or match-grade variants of issue rifles (as in the case of the M21 sniper rifle.)

While the use of issue rifles has eased the logistical demands on the army supply system, the use of semi-automatic rifles for sniping applications is not with out serious drawbacks. Although the M21 is a very accurate weapon, it is not designed to stand up to battlefield abuse. The wood stock was subject to warping, the gas operating system was subject to fouling and contamination, and because the weapon was semi-automatic there was no way to ensure every round was chambered in exactly the same way. All of these conditions could grossly affect the accuracy of the rifle beyond 500 yards.

In light for these limitations, the Army initiated a program in the 70's to re-introduce a bolt-action sniper rifle to its inventory. Eventually, the weapon the Army settled on was the M24 bolt-action rifle. Chambered for 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) the M24 is based on the Remington Arms 700 action and is very similar to the civilian 40X target rifle and the Marine Corp's M40 series rifle.

As with the M40, the M24 utilizes a custom-built fiberglass stock but with an adjustable cheek pad as well as an adjustable pad on the butt stock to adjust length of pull. Both utilize an internal 5 round magazine, are scoped, and are adaptable to the use of night vision devices and weapon scopes. The greatest difference between the two is the fact that the M40 is a "short" action and the M24 is a "long" action. The reason for this difference is the Army ultimately wanted to adopt a more powerful .30 caliber cartridge (such as the .300 Winchester Magnum) which would require the "long" action to extract the larger cartridges in its re-chambered sniper rifles.
Description
The M24 Sniper Weapon System is a bolt-action rifle chambered to fire 7.62mm NATO (currently either the M118 Special Ball Cartridge or the M852 Match Cartridge, though it can fire any standard NATO 7.62mm cartridge.) The Kevlar-reinforced fiberglass stock is custom built by HS Precision and incorporates an adjustable cheek pad and as well as an adjustable pad on the butt stock to adjust length of pull. The 24" barrel is bolted to the full-length aluminum bedding block in the stock to reduce vibration and loss of zero. The scope is a Leupold & Stevens Mk. IV M3A day telescope and is mounted on the rifle using Mk. IV rings and base.

 

[Jose]

1776, there is one significant difference between the M40 and the M24.

The M24 is entriely manufactured by Remington. IIRC, the only part not made by them is the stock, which is made by HS Precision.

The M40 is manufactured entirely by the USMC Precision Weapns Section. They do use a Remington 40X or 700 receiver (it probably doesn't matter which since they true them up anyway), and maybe a Remington trigger, but that's about it. The bottom metal is from DD Ross, the stocks are from McMillan, and the barrels are made at the PWS shop though I do not know whose blanks the use.

In any case, the M24 will start being replaced in a year or two by the new Stoner M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System.

 

[PatMcD]

Moreover, every Jarhead I know would never get his nomelclature wrong when it comes to a USMC weapons system. I don't care if they are identical rifles, if the Marines use the M40, that's what they are going to call it.