The Best Light Machine Gun.

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#341

That is called supressing fire. Not section fire. Section fire is an attempt to kill someone. Surpressing fire is not necessarily an attemept to kill someone. You are confused.

But you are wrong my friend. That is precicely how much of that battle (Chosin) was faught. The Chinese ran directly up into the enemy positions. Hundreds of them, over, and over, and over again, for 10 days straight.

But it is not. The ammo for the M1 Carbine does not fit any WWII era US pistol weapon. Sorry.

Perhaps. But not with assult rifles. They are not used for section fire at 600m. That’s what MG’s do. At 300m, yea, maybe with assult rifles. But not at 600m. They are not used that way.

No references to that that I can find, but I have heard the rumor… posted in this and one other forum by pseudoexperts. None of the soldiers who faught at Chosin ever said that that I can find. My father says it’s not so too. Guess maybe that’s because they were’nt shooting at the enemy with M1 Carbines from over 200 yards away. I suppose they were using the M1 Garand for that task, eh?

But it was used in many, many, many engagements as an assult rifle in WWII in the Pacific as well as in Korea. Oops!

That is precicely what many USMC did. Pick up an M1 Carbine and start shooting Chinese soldiers because the Garand holds only a few rounds. Yup. That happened a whole freaking lot alright.

Chosin aside? What about WWII aside? Tell that to the many, many, many USMC that used the M1 Carbine as an assult rifle in the Pacific and at Chosin. In fact, go to a WWII vet site (if you can find one) and post that. Give us the link so we can all go see them correcting at you for saying such.

Well, they aren’t. Sorry. Bullet drop from an AR at 500m is bad, and at 600m you might as well be shooting at an elephant.

Effectiveness includes accuracy, not just energy. Even though it might kill if you could hit them at 600m, that would not make it effective. It’s only effective if you have a reasonable amount of accuracy as well as energy.

“The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.”

If you can’t land rounds with sensible accuracy at 600m with an AR, it certainly is not accurate at that range, and it certainly is not effective.

Nope. Not at 600m. Even the manufacturers say they are not.

#342

I really can’t believe this argument is still going :shock:

Ironingman - there are at least 8 members of the British Army (that’s the best Army in the world that come and wins all of America’s wars for them) telling you that the SA80 assault rifle is effective to 600m in section fire. We have probably all done it at least on the ranges. Some of them will have done it in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and all the other benighted shit holes we work in (although not in NI, because there’s to much risk in hurting civvies there). There are people talking to you who have killed men in combat, when they talk about what happens in combat, computer gamers should listen.

The SA80 is not a carbine, it if a rifle.

I can certainly see enough of the human figure to aim at them from 600m (and my eyesight’s not all that good), if I can see them I can aim at them, if I can aim at them there’s a chance I will hit them. At 600. Effectively (because if I hit them, they will be wounded).
Now take the fact that there’s a decent chance of me (a trained soldier with 7 years (up to now) served including NI and Iraq) hitting someone at 600m, put 7 other trained, experienced soldiers next to me aiming at the same thing, there’s now 8 chances that that target will be hit and wounded/killed. That is effective section fire from 600m with a 5.56mm assault rifle.

#343

DoubleDork, don’t start that “British wins America’s wars for them” crap. It’s false, insulting, and a measure of your ignorance of the world outside your bedroom. Besides, the world knows that the USMC is the best fighting force on Earth and has been for over 100 years, and Britain sends foreingers into battle as front line troops (Gurkas).

section fire with assult rifles is not done at 600m. You are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.

You see my confused friend, section fire is several men firing at an anemy, usually up to 300m, to try to kill him. Surpressing fire is several men firing at a man to make the bastard stay put.

You don’t need to be accurate to produce surpressing fire. Go back to the training camp and start over. You missed class that day.

#344

DoubleDork, section fire with assult rifles is not done at 600m. You are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.[/quote]

I have done it (only on the range, but if it can be done on the range it can be done anywhere), other people here have done it. It’s not suppressive fire, it is aiming at your enemy in the hope of killing or wounding him.

IT’S WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING - WE DO IT FUCKING WELL. THAT’S WHY WE ARE THE BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL TRAINED SOLDIERS THAT THINGS THAT THEY HAVE DONE ARE NOT POSSIBLE?

#345

Still confused eh? Guess you think covering fire is done with LAWS too. As I have said… provide the link to an official government website or military vet who states on their site that assult rifles are effective at 600m.

But you aren’t. The US army is the best army in the world. More confusion.

#346

I am a military vet (sort of), so are all the other people you are arguing with. If I set up a website and describe firing at 600m and then give you the link, will you then listen to me?

And covering fire could be given using LAW if you really wanted to. It’d be a waste of anti tank ammo, but it could be done.

#347

If you posted that assult rifles are effective at 600m on a web site you’d likely be surprised at the number of emails you’d get from knowledgable people that tell you how far from reality you are.

The effective maximum range of virtually all assult rifles is approximately 500m. Not 550m, not 600m, not 700m.

When you are in the manufacturing business and have produced assult rifles that make all the ones in use obsolete, let us know. Until then I refer you to the manufacturers of current AR’s.

Enfield SA-80: L85A1 and L85A2 assault rifle (Great Britain)
Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

That’s your British assult rifle my confused friend. 500m. Not 600.

Accuracy is a part of the effective range for a weapon. Assult rifles are not accurate at 600m. Is the British army telling it’s soldiers that it’s assult rifle has an effective rasnge of 600m???

I do think you missed a class or two, really.

“In my opinion, although the SA-80 is not as bad as some make it out to be, it is in Britains best interest to replace it with a real rifle asap, maybe keeping the SUSAT’s and bayonets. The reason it has gone down so poorly with those who have to use it is probably due to comparing it with the previous issue SLR, whereas the SLR was a lion, the SA-80 is a cockroach (an annoying bugger which you cant get rid of). I would hate to think how our casualties might have looked if we had adopted the SA-80 before the Falklands conflict of 82.”

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

#348

That is a single rifle (and is also different to current British Army training that say that a single rifle is only effective to 300m). A section of weapons is 8 times more effective than a single man - the round remains powerful enough to kill at 600m, the sights on an SA80 (particularly SUSAT, although you can use ironsights at that range) are more than good enough to pick a target out at 600m, a decent marksman should have no particular difficulty aiming off for the increased range.

And since when did some guy in a suit working in Enfield know more about how effective a weapon is than a guy in green who’s carried that weapon to war?

#349

Well! There you have it! 300m. Isn’t that what I said? Accurate to 300m or perhaps more? Yup. Not 600m. Nopers.

Now section fire, that typically takes place at up to 300m too. Surpressing fire? I guess any range is game if you can land rounds all over the freaking place.

Again, my friend, you are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.

Since they designed, used military advisors to help them develop it, tested it thousands of times, and fired about 10 million rounds through the thing. Are you sure you are in the military? I can’t imagine anyone in the military saying such. :shock:

It’s really simple. Assult rifles have an effective range of typically 450-500m. That is thier maximum range at which they have both the energy and accuracy to kill with a single round. Just because you can estimate the difference, does not mean you will hit them. What good does it do to shoot at a man if you can only consistently land a round within 1 or 2 meters of him? None at all.

let me reiterate something for you:

The maximum range at which a weapon can be expected to be accurate and provide the desired effect.

Think about that. If the range of the weapon with accuracy is 500m, it is not going to be very accurate at 600m. Not at all accurate. If it is accurate to within 1/5 meter at 500m, imagine 600m. Would it be accurate to within 1/2 meter? 1 meter? That is uttely worthless accuracy my friend.

At 300m the Enfield will land rounds withing the distance of probably less than the span of your hand. Maybe the length of your finger even! At 400m, perhaps the span of your hand or your hand and the wrist. At 500m perhaps the width of your shoulders. At 600 meters, perhaps the length of your arm. That’s not acceptable accuracy my friend. And such a weapon is not effective with such innacurracy. it is therefore not effective at that range either. Now take into account the terrible bullet drop that weapons experience when used at ranges beyond their maximum effective range…

Are you starting to understand why the effective range of typical AR’s is 500m or less? Let’s hope so.

#350

Still confused eh? Guess you think covering fire is done with LAWS too. As I have said… provide the link to an official government website or military vet who states on their site that assult rifles are effective at 600m.

But you aren’t. The US army is the best army in the world. More confusion.[/quote]

Depending on what you would describe “Best army” it would be debatable. The American Amy is huge (too huge), but I deffinetely think that the British Army is better trained than the American army.

#351

That’s nice. Hooray for you.

#352

Arguing about the Gurkas eh?? well I suggest you look at the British forum, theres a bunch of pages laying it out nice and easy for you to understand.

#353

I’ve already expressed my opinion on those pages. Please stay with us here. We’re talking about how assult rifles are not effective at 600m because they are not accurate at that range.

#354

At 300m you can knock Fig. 12 targets over all day with an SA-80 (that’s a head and shoulders target) - I’ve done it, and with most of the shots clustered around the middle.

The current British doctrine is individual fire up to 300m, section fire to 600m. The currently serving members have access to the Pams, but they’re restricted so can’t be posted. Or maybe the Pams are wrong? Maybe my aide memoire produced by my unit on shooting was also wrong?

The USMC also have a 500yd segmant to there rifle qual with the M16, and that’s individual fire.

If you really don’t think it’s so effective at 600m, I invite you to stand downrange whilst Cuts, Bluffcove, myself and some of the others fire with SA-80s or M16s.

Or, tell you what, we’ll make it fair. A section of us advancing, fire-and-manoevre style from 800m (the maximum sight setting on a SUSAT), with you standing absolutely still at the butts, and we’ll take bets at what range you get dropped.

As for your comment about assault rifles being carbines, here’s a bunch that aren’t (and we’ll restrict it to 5.56mm):

SA-80
FAMAS
G36
FN FNC + variants e.g. Bofors AK5
M16
Steyr AUG
AR18

Oh, and you’re im your 40s but asked your dad about assault rifles? Do you still live in your parents’ basement? Has it ever crossed your mind that he might be wrong? I’m assuming that he’s put this idea about “carbine assault rifles” in your head.

#355

Ironman wrote:
Besides, the world knows that the USMC is the best fighting force on Earth and has been for over 100 years, and Britain sends foreingers into battle as front line troops (Gurkas).

Oh please!
Best fighting force on Earth?
Good troops certainly, but get things in perspective.
Try taking off the red white and blue spectacles.
And strictly as a point of courtesy, it’s childish to try to make a cheap shot, then refuse to debate the point thereafter, but then, it’s not the first time you’ve done that, is it?

#356

I wanted to stay out of this head to head but I cant resist it any longer. Firstly Tin"man" you havnt got a clue get out get a life (while you still can) learn something from personel experience and maybe you will be in a position to debate rationally. I wont repeat arguments here apart from to stress that assault rifle does not equal carbine.
However there has been assertions from our resident ex-spurt here that the human eye prevents a man beng sufficiently recognised at 600m to allow accurate shooting. Well before I embarked on my now over 16 years military experience I was in the Army Cadets in the UK and on our range weekends we regularly shot at man sized targets and falling plates at 600m with No4 Lee Enfields using iron sights and that’s 14 - 17 year old kids not trained soldiers.

#357

Well we do keep our armed forces chalked full of experience so that helps…i guess. :smiley: :? :shock:

#358

Believe me, so do we… :shock:

#359

supressing fire - keeping the enemies head down - the desired end result.
section fire - a group firing together - the means to the desired end.

DO NOT confuse means and ends!

Secondly what happens at metre 501 where the bullet becomes ineffective?
Thirdly how many vets do you want to talk to? and how many do you think are on this site.
Fourthly you brought up Gurkhas again not us - and you deny foreigners are in your services - a slight on them surely!
Fifthly - how many rifles do you beleive a soldeir carries into combat? you constantly refer to changing weapons depending on situations!

THIS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A…

1
2
3
VVANKER

#360

OK, so we have established that assult rifles are not effective at 600m. And it only to you 15 pages of bullcrapping and trying to change the subject of the debate to come around and admit it.

Next time you make a bogus claim just jump to the admission part right off and you will save yourself all that trouble, eh?

Good job guys!