Best Weapons for Jungle Combat ?

You sound like an unhappy American. A country was you can vote for the candidate of choice, practice the religion or politics of your choice: (even the frickin Nazi party or one of it’s so called Neo-Nazi spinoffs i.e.: Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, if you so desire). You can relocate at will. By the way you can leave the US if you so desire if you find the country so oppressive.

As for depriving the developing world economies? Where are your concrete examples of this? We sell to anybody who will buy our products and often buy foreign products back with a stiff tariff from others such as China, Mexico, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

The people in these countries that work for American concerns are usually light years ahead of those who are not. I worked for Bosch’s US concern which at the time had production faculties in China. The employees in China jumped were joyful at the opportunity to work for us.

As for these historical comparisons are they really relevant to the US in 2014. We spend more to feed and help the world than any other nation.

We have (particularly under the Obama administration) borrowed from the Peoples Republic of China to pay “not our military dept”, but for our social programs, so now our grandchildren will end up owing China.

I vehemently disagree with that meantality. We don't love this country or leave it. Leaving this country would be disloyal and fickle. We are allowed to say what we want, when we want, and how we want. That's what I protect as a soldier. That means showing that the US has warts. If they aren't addressed and are constantly sweapt under the rug then they will never be fixed.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
 
I do? I plan and conduct false flag operations? Wow, I had no idea I personally had so much power!

I am saying that your response was intellectually dishonest. Not your country, but YOU! Specifically you! Then you deflect by making accusations against my country without addressing the substance of what I, me, a person, asked you. What is so hard about this? Dismissing substance with qualified ignorance is the very definition of insanity...

This is the bad of English, when I told you I meant you americans,
 
And they deprived many of the developing countries around the world we exploit in order to do that. And even now those same jobs are going right back to those same countries because are own workers are too expensive and are more problematic to employ in the modern corporate sense.

But the British it did before us, and the Spanish, and the Byzantines, and the Romans and the Egyptians ect. So it's nothing new.

China and East Asia may claim our seat with the world's reserve currency and take over this role soon enough.

You sound like an unhappy American. A country was you can vote for the candidate of choice, practice the religion or politics of your choice: (even the frickin Nazi party or one of it’s so called Neo-Nazi spinoffs i.e.: Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, if you so desire). You can relocate at will. By the way you can leave the US if you so desire if you find the country so oppressive.

As for depriving the developing world economies? Where are your concrete examples of this? We sell to anybody who will buy our products and often buy foreign products back with a stiff tariff from others such as China, Mexico, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

The people in these countries that work for American concerns are usually light years ahead of those who are not. I worked for Bosch’s US concern which at the time had production faculties in China. The employees in China jumped were joyful at the opportunity to work for us.

As for these historical comparisons are they really relevant to the US in 2014. We spend more to feed and help the world than any other nation.

We have (particularly under the Obama administration) borrowed from the Peoples Republic of China to pay “not our military dept”, but for our social programs, so now our grandchildren will end up owing China.

I vehemently disagree with that meantality. We don't love this country or leave it. Leaving this country would be disloyal and fickle. We are allowed to say what we want, when we want, and how we want. That's what I protect as a soldier. That means showing that the US has warts. If they aren't addressed and are constantly sweapt under the rug then they will never be fixed.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

1st you are the one that highlighted that portion of the post, not I. Thus slightly twisting the meaning of the post. In some countries citizens are not allowed to leave, this is another one of our many freedoms.

Back to the original post. It is not a simple complaint about US policy or a politician, but a statement against the US "as I read it". It is filled with vague non concrete historical innuendos. Without a lengthy political dissertation this country is far from perfect, but it's good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
1st you are the one that highlighted that portion of the post, not I. Thus slightly twisting the meaning of the post. In some countries citizens are not allowed to leave, this is another one of our many freedoms.

Back to the original post. It is not a simple complaint about US policy or a politician, but a statement against the US "as I read it". It is filled with vague non concrete historical innuendos. Without a lengthy political dissertation this country is far from perfect, but it's good enough for me.


I apologize, I was in a pretty foul mood yesterday and I think it rubbed off on a few of my posts.

I think the point I was trying to make was that it is ok to say things that may make someone else uncomfortable as it pertains to anything in this country. I hear quite a lot of the whole "love it or leave" and while I'm not saying you fall into that category, what was said just struck a cord with me at the moment.

I love this country more than anything. I've not only sacrificed for this country, but I have also done some pretty questionable things on her behalf as well. Now that's something I gotta live with. What I don't have to live with(along with others) is allowing my country to go and make the same mistakes over, forcing other guys like me, or potentially my children, to have to face the repercussions of the bad decisions, bad foreign policy, and bad leadership within this country. We CAN do better, and we should.

Although we have a rich, short history, we also have quite a few blemishes as well. I think the greatest thing about this country is that we can actively fix those blemishes...of course we can also ignore them too...But I prefer to fix them.
 
I apologize, I was in a pretty foul mood yesterday and I think it rubbed off on a few of my posts.

I think the point I was trying to make was that it is ok to say things that may make someone else uncomfortable as it pertains to anything in this country. I hear quite a lot of the whole "love it or leave" and while I'm not saying you fall into that category, what was said just struck a cord with me at the moment.

I love this country more than anything. I've not only sacrificed for this country, but I have also done some pretty questionable things on her behalf as well. Now that's something I gotta live with. What I don't have to live with(along with others) is allowing my country to go and make the same mistakes over, forcing other guys like me, or potentially my children, to have to face the repercussions of the bad decisions, bad foreign policy, and bad leadership within this country. We CAN do better, and we should.

Although we have a rich, short history, we also have quite a few blemishes as well. I think the greatest thing about this country is that we can actively fix those blemishes...of course we can also ignore them too...But I prefer to fix them.

I couldn't more. We have a great nation full of great people from all races and ethnic backgrounds and fantastic natural wonders. Few nations contain semi-jungle wilderness's such as we have in the Everglades and endless sub-artic and artic wilderness's like we have in Alaska. We are the only western power who's population is rapidly growing and this is due in large part to the strength of our immigrants.
Yes we've had a checked past in our treatment of women, people with color and native Americans. But most-many of these wrongs have been corrected. I can point out many mistakes our government makes but at least we can vote for a new one.
I am proud of our military and am proud of our men in service, as I once was some time back " although not in combat". I am glad to see the US now provides more support for vets who have physical and mental disabilities than it used to as well. I work with a VOC "veterans outreach program" that tries to prevent vets from going homeless and see to it vet's get jobs or mental and physical assistance as needed.
 
The US is a great country, I truly adore the people living there. Although, I can be critical to the US. I have mixed opinions about the 2nd Amendment. The huge majority of the gun owners are responsible people, but...we probably shall not begin a discussion about that now.
My woman is an American so I am biased, but I do understand the US except for one thing. I don't understand baseball. The Swedes do something similar when they are drunk and we call it burnball.

I have a question about calibers to the knowledgeable members of this forum. When I was in the army, we shifted from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45. What do you think about the 5.56? Is it too weak? My opinion is it is, but going from 7.62 to 5.56...it felt like a toy. I should have preferred something between. I have been fired rifles with 6.5x55 (biathlon) and I liked it. What happened with the two calibers 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel?
 
5.56 to weak - for what?
It kills.
The advantage is we can carry much more ammo.
This reason...

Gunshot wounds aren't going to kill outright no matter the caliber unless it is a head or heart shot. Most soldiers will die from blasts or bleed out from wounds which I think the 5.56 has plenty of potential on.

However, for every 210 rounds I can carry for .308 (7.62 NATO) I can carry at least 400 for 5.56. It's not just about hitting either, most of your rounds won't hit the enemy they will hit close...that means the enemy is suppressed. That means they aren't shooting accurately, they aren't moving, they aren't doing much of anything productive...So then the grunts can close with them and in that realm I will say that 5.56 platforms are MUCH better for cramped or closer engagements then 7.62...just my humble opinion.
 
, but I do understand the US except for one thing. I don't understand baseball. The Swedes do something similar when they are drunk and we call it burnball.

I have a question about calibers to the knowledgeable members of this forum. When I was in the army, we shifted from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45. What do you think about the 5.56? Is it too weak? My opinion is it is, but going from 7.62 to 5.56...it felt like a toy. I should have preferred something between. I have been fired rifles with 6.5x55 (biathlon) and I liked it. What happened with the two calibers 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel?
Baseball is too boring a game for the modern world! Where the subject is "Jungle" the 5.56 is a great round for close combat, not very good for places like Afghanistan.
5.56 to weak - for what?
It kills.
The advantage is we can carry much more ammo.

This reason...

Gunshot wounds aren't going to kill outright no matter the caliber unless it is a head or heart shot. Most soldiers will die from blasts or bleed out from wounds which I think the 5.56 has plenty of potential on.

However, for every 210 rounds I can carry for .308 (7.62 NATO) I can carry at least 400 for 5.56. It's not just about hitting either, most of your rounds won't hit the enemy they will hit close...that means the enemy is suppressed. That means they aren't shooting accurately, they aren't moving, they aren't doing much of anything productive...So then the grunts can close with them and in that realm I will say that 5.56 platforms are MUCH better for cramped or closer engagements then 7.62...just my humble opinion.
There is a story from Burma of a Japanese body that the only damage to it seemed to be a finger severed by a 50 BMG round....
 
This reason...

Gunshot wounds aren't going to kill outright no matter the caliber unless it is a head or heart shot.
It really came as a surprise when I experienced it the first time.
the 5.56 is a great round for close combat, not very good for places like Afghanistan.
Based on what experience?

Never fired a 7.62 in anger.
Lots of experience with 5.56 and it works for me.
 
. What happened with the two calibers 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel?
If you're talking about the 6.8 that some Army guys developed with Remington, the fact that it wasn't developed by the Army itself is probably the problem.

Lots of experience with 5.56 and it works for me.
Been reports for years of 5.56 being out-ranged and that causing problems in places like Afghanistan & in deserts where long range shooting can be done. One of the reasons the 7.62 has new interest.
 
I find the two "new" calibers interesting when I never liked the 5.56, but with the consideration of moving from 7.62 to 5.56. I noticed the 6.8 SPC when Barrett Firearms developed the REC7 (M468) and I found it interesting. I agree with the amount of rounds with the 5.56 and you cannot carry that much with 7.62. However, the 6.8 or 6.5 will provide with the same amount of rounds with out a major increase in weight.

The kinetic energy the 6.8 and the 6.5 delivers are much better than the 5.56 and I view it as a compromise between the 7.62 and the 5.56.

Kesse; if you get the opportunity to fire the German G3, do that. I was issued it, when I was in the army. It was a nice assault rifle, if we ignore the length and the weight of it...The FNC I got in the end of my tour was much nicer to handle, but it felt like a toy when I tossed some rounds down range. We also compared the two calibers and the 5.56 didn't really performed. But we are biased, hence my liking for the 6 calibers and when I have been competing with the 6.5...
 
6.8 was the best round they could get to work in an M-16. Anything better wouldn't fit according to reports.
 
Been reports for years of 5.56 being out-ranged and that causing problems in places like Afghanistan & in deserts where long range shooting can be done. One of the reasons the 7.62 has new interest.

Firstly, the evidence that 5.56mm is lacking in performance seems to be almost entirely based on observation and opinion from a small number of troops. The men concerned are no doubt telling the truth, as they see it, but we know that memories and observations gained in combat are very far from reliable. Every conflict since 1945 has produced a raft of small-arms performance observations, and opinions of a generally imprecise and largely irrelevant nature to the success or failure of operations.
The other basis for the discussion is that small-arms engagements in Afghanistan are occurring at longer ranges than was previously considered likely or possible. The condition cited is 300-900m, with enemy troops primarily engaging with the PKM machine gun. This may well be true at times, but why is this a problem? Essentially, if the enemy is equipped with AKM as individual weapons and PKM as a section/platoon weapon, then, we outrange the AKM in terms of ballistic performance, accuracy and optics and our GPMG matches or exceeds the effective range of the PKM, by virtue of better training and employment if nothing else.​
X
Based on this understanding, it is hard to see where the problem is. Range is not an issue and, even if it were, it would be ludicrous to base lack of performance on one relative criterion found in one theatre. To base the need on the equally dubious assertion that asymmetric warfare demands more capable infantry weapons is to quote opinion unsupported by logic or data. There is simply no convincing body of evidence that a platoon equipped with a combination of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons, is in any way disadvantaged compared to an enemy with AKMs and PKMs. The phenomenon has certainly not occurred in numerous conflicts anywhere else on the planet.
I find the two "new" calibers interesting when I never liked the 5.56, but with the consideration of moving from 7.62 to 5.56. I noticed the 6.8 SPC when Barrett Firearms developed the REC7 (M468) and I found it interesting. I agree with the amount of rounds with the 5.56 and you cannot carry that much with 7.62. However, the 6.8 or 6.5 will provide with the same amount of rounds with out a major increase in weight.
While capable on paper and on the range, there is simply no evidence that adopting marginally more capable rounds would make our forces more effective. The ballistic and terminal performance of all small-arms ammunition is extremely well understood due to range testing, and not combat experience. The weapons are far more accurate than the men shooting them and the 6.8mm and 6.5mm would not make any significant difference.​

The kinetic energy the 6.8 and the 6.5 delivers are much better than the 5.56 and I view it as a compromise between the 7.62 and the 5.56.

Does a projectile that delivers twice the energy at 600m make a soldier more effective than he already is? I would say that the overall performance increase is marginal under combat conditions. A 5.56mm drops below supersonic at 750m, a 6.5mm at 1000m and a 7.62mm at 875m.
All of it is based on the idea that infantry capability is inextricably connected to small-arms calibre performance. There is a very good body of empirical data to show that this is not true. The infantry platoon’s ability to project HE is actually far more decisive in combat and this has been proven and well understood since 1919.​

Kesse; if you get the opportunity to fire the German G3, do that. I was issued it, when I was in the army. It was a nice assault rifle, if we ignore the length and the weight of it...The FNC I got in the end of my tour was much nicer to handle, but it felt like a toy when I tossed some rounds down range. We also compared the two calibers and the 5.56 didn't really performed. But we are biased, hence my liking for the 6 calibers and when I have been competing with the 6.5...
I have fired the G3 many times.
It is too heavy and the recoil is too strong. It takes too long to get the gun back on target. I can hit twice as many targets with my C7 on the same time.
 
Firstly, the evidence that 5.56mm is lacking in performance seems to be almost entirely based on observation and opinion from a small number of troops. The men concerned are no doubt telling the truth, as they see it, but we know that memories and observations gained in combat are very far from reliable. Every conflict since 1945 has produced a raft of small-arms performance observations, and opinions of a generally imprecise and largely irrelevant nature to the success or failure of operations.
The other basis for the discussion is that small-arms engagements in Afghanistan are occurring at longer ranges than was previously considered likely or possible. The condition cited is 300-900m, with enemy troops primarily engaging with the PKM machine gun. This may well be true at times, but why is this a problem? Essentially, if the enemy is equipped with AKM as individual weapons and PKM as a section/platoon weapon, then, we outrange the AKM in terms of ballistic performance, accuracy and optics and our GPMG matches or exceeds the effective range of the PKM, by virtue of better training and employment if nothing else.​
X
Based on this understanding, it is hard to see where the problem is. Range is not an issue and, even if it were, it would be ludicrous to base lack of performance on one relative criterion found in one theatre. To base the need on the equally dubious assertion that asymmetric warfare demands more capable infantry weapons is to quote opinion unsupported by logic or data. There is simply no convincing body of evidence that a platoon equipped with a combination of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons, is in any way disadvantaged compared to an enemy with AKMs and PKMs. The phenomenon has certainly not occurred in numerous conflicts anywhere else on the planet.

While capable on paper and on the range, there is simply no evidence that adopting marginally more capable rounds would make our forces more effective. The ballistic and terminal performance of all small-arms ammunition is extremely well understood due to range testing, and not combat experience. The weapons are far more accurate than the men shooting them and the 6.8mm and 6.5mm would not make any significant difference.​



Does a projectile that delivers twice the energy at 600m make a soldier more effective than he already is? I would say that the overall performance increase is marginal under combat conditions. A 5.56mm drops below supersonic at 750m, a 6.5mm at 1000m and a 7.62mm at 875m.
All of it is based on the idea that infantry capability is inextricably connected to small-arms calibre performance. There is a very good body of empirical data to show that this is not true. The infantry platoon’s ability to project HE is actually far more decisive in combat and this has been proven and well understood since 1919.​

I have fired the G3 many times.
It is too heavy and the recoil is too strong. It takes too long to get the gun back on target. I can hit twice as many targets with my C7 on the same time.

There are articles by US military personnel (PhDs and Officers) which contradicts with what you are saying. Even Jane's Defense has articles which are arguing about the shortcomings of the 5.56

Can you provide with the empirical data you are referring to?
 
Last edited:
Among the best people involved in Jungle Rumble were Navy Seals in the Delta area and they rarely used firearms , they used stealth they used their brain and in most cases they let their prey come to them .
 
There are articles by US military personnel (PhDs and Officers) which contradicts with what you are saying. Even Jane's Defense has articles which are arguing about the shortcomings of the 5.56
Which is not necessarily evidence that they are right. It smells more of the arms industry trying to sell a new toy. For more than the 10 years + we have been in Afghanistan it´s never been a problem.


Can you provide with the empirical data you are referring to?
Not off the cuff. There are both British and Danish studies which disprove the 5.56mm weaknesses. I have read the Danish study but unfortunately don´t have access to it anymore.

The only advocate I can think of right now is Per Arvidsson, a former military officer, with a Master degree in weapon technology and ballistics from the Swedish military academy

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/33069602?access_key=key-26l37azk60ueonrxk58d

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=769
 
Which is not necessarily evidence that they are right. It smells more of the arms industry trying to sell a new toy. For more than the 10 years + we have been in Afghanistan it´s never been a problem.


Not off the cuff. There are both British and Danish studies which disprove the 5.56mm weaknesses. I have read the Danish study but unfortunately don´t have access to it anymore.

The only advocate I can think of right now is Per Arvidsson, a former military officer, with a Master degree in weapon technology and ballistics from the Swedish military academy

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/33069602?access_key=key-26l37azk60ueonrxk58d

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=769

Whether Jane's Defense and Ft. Leavenworth articles are right or wrong, the same goes for Per Arvidsson, he does not compare the 5.56 with other calibers than the 7.62, if he had included the 6.5 and others I had been more convinced about the validity of his article.

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2414

Btw. when we compared the 7.62 and the 5.56 we were shooting at body armors in the ranges of 100 meters, 200 meters and 300 meters. At 100 meters no major difference, further away, there was a difference.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, the evidence that 5.56mm is lacking in performance seems to be almost entirely based on observation and opinion from a small number of troops. The men concerned are no doubt telling the truth, as they see it, but we know that memories and observations gained in combat are very far from reliable. Every conflict since 1945 has produced a raft of small-arms performance observations, and opinions of a generally imprecise and largely irrelevant nature to the success or failure of operations.
The other basis for the discussion is that small-arms engagements in Afghanistan are occurring at longer ranges than was previously considered likely or possible. The condition cited is 300-900m, with enemy troops primarily engaging with the PKM machine gun. This may well be true at times, but why is this a problem? Essentially, if the enemy is equipped with AKM as individual weapons and PKM as a section/platoon weapon, then, we outrange the AKM in terms of ballistic performance, accuracy and optics and our GPMG matches or exceeds the effective range of the PKM, by virtue of better training and employment if nothing else.​
X
Based on this understanding, it is hard to see where the problem is. Range is not an issue and, even if it were, it would be ludicrous to base lack of performance on one relative criterion found in one theatre. To base the need on the equally dubious assertion that asymmetric warfare demands more capable infantry weapons is to quote opinion unsupported by logic or data. There is simply no convincing body of evidence that a platoon equipped with a combination of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons, is in any way disadvantaged compared to an enemy with AKMs and PKMs. The phenomenon has certainly not occurred in numerous conflicts anywhere else on the planet.

While capable on paper and on the range, there is simply no evidence that adopting marginally more capable rounds would make our forces more effective. The ballistic and terminal performance of all small-arms ammunition is extremely well understood due to range testing, and not combat experience. The weapons are far more accurate than the men shooting them and the 6.8mm and 6.5mm would not make any significant difference.​



Does a projectile that delivers twice the energy at 600m make a soldier more effective than he already is? I would say that the overall performance increase is marginal under combat conditions. A 5.56mm drops below supersonic at 750m, a 6.5mm at 1000m and a 7.62mm at 875m.
All of it is based on the idea that infantry capability is inextricably connected to small-arms calibre performance. There is a very good body of empirical data to show that this is not true. The infantry platoon’s ability to project HE is actually far more decisive in combat and this has been proven and well understood since 1919.​

I have fired the G3 many times.
It is too heavy and the recoil is too strong. It takes too long to get the gun back on target. I can hit twice as many targets with my C7 on the same time.
The reports I saw were talking about a few incidents involving locals with .303 Enfields keeping 5.56 equipped troops unable to effectively reply. The 6.8 might not be all that great a round, just the best one that'll work in an M-16 with just a barrel change, there are no doubt better long range rounds, but they would require a different rifle.
 
The weapons are far more accurate than the men shooting them and the 6.8mm and 6.5mm would not make any significant difference.​
I've no practical experience with any of the rifles talked about in this discussion. However I have experience with some rifles capable of accuracy at distance such as the 303, an accurate bolt action rifle (at least the ones I've used).​
I would think many-most men can be trained to shoot accurately at distances > 500 yards (although some will never be able to obtain this benchmark) given a rifle with long range capabilities.​
Firing a long range rifle in combat may be another matter? Also there's more to it than the size of the round, the length of barrel, type of rifling, sighting used, etc..​
 
Back
Top