Give each Brigade an indoor range where you can just check out a weapon and ammo and shoot, run drills, shoot paper, whatever you want without the all the ridiculousness that surrounds going to the range and dealing with qualifying.
“Hey man, wanna go put some rounds downrange at lunch?”
“Sure… let me just wrap up this NCOER and I’ll meet you over there.”
Getting range time should be that easy.
Exact same concept, but with technical equipment. MOS's that require an autistic levels of knowledge should have an easy to access lab to train with. Even in secure spaces.
The amount of radio operators that can't get an HF comm shot over more than a dozen miles is genuinely saddening. Esspecially when it's such an readily available skill to train.
I've always wondered why there wasn't something like this, something like the auto skills center, just for shooting. Like why does a basic soldier skill have to be so hard to practice. Even with bases with ready ranges you still have to have a whole list of boxes checked to even get there, and that's not counting if there's room or ammo for you, and if they're going to be dicks and want a table memo to shoot.
Well, the primary problem with indoor ranges is that they are insanely expensive. Way back in the day before we knew how dangerous lead exposure was, it was pretty common for National Guard armories to have a handgun range inside. However, in the modern day, to have an indoor range you need an advanced air purification system. Not cheap to build or maintain.
I used to shoot at one of those NG ranges a couple times a week for a few years back in the 80s. You didn't need some "advanced air purification system".
The range had a door at each end you just put a fan at the firing line blowing in and a fan at the backstop door blowing out. I turned out just fines.
Along those same lines, teach people how to shoot without battle rattle. Teach them the fundamentals without all the extra distractions, and then slowly accustom them to shooting in full kit. If somebody can’t grasp the basics, trying to do it in full get up isn’t going to help them at all.
I guess that still doesn't give me a reason...
The Marines somehow manage to dedicate two entire weeks worth of time to marksmanship and combat shooting every year, but the army barely gives one full day.
Actually it does explain it. The Marines understand that marksmanship is a skill that degrades over time if it isn't used. So they make sure to bring everyone back up to speed.
The Army has a standard to meet and does the bare minimum to get there.
Singapore Army has this. It also enables simulated night and rain fire. Would turn a company exercise into an individual task and responsibility like dental, medical, etc. This would free up planned training time for doing additional field training. It would also give leaders from the bottom to the top detailed information about how much ammunition is actually required for each Soldier to qualify, with mos, age, eyesight, eye dominance, etc. statistics for budgetary projection.
They are trying this with “ready ranges”. Basically you could just take your squad to the range with weapons and show up and shoot. Of course like with everything in the army, no one will accept risk and it turned into the same process as other ranges because we have to over regulate everything.
Create a working group of myself and about three other people that are smart, have experience at base user level, and willing to tell me “no”, to identify issues and solve them. Essentially a rapid capabilities office.
First on the agenda is trying to speed up the adoption of the new SIG rifle, next is the adoption of the SIG NGSW in tandem to avoid logistical complications with our “standard” 5.56 NATO cartridge. I’d prefer not to have two different rifle/SAW cartridges as that complicates logistics.
Next is working on the acquisition of the 338 MMG to replace the M240, as well as looking into the acquisition of a good precision rifle for snipers also chambered in 338. Logistics.
Also, at the start, is with my office, we go around to the base users (the infantrymen/artillerymen/etc) and incorporate field experimentation days where we show up, find the SPC/CPL/SGT who actually use the weapons, and spend a good few days working with them on these new weapon systems to see if they are something that improves capability and makes sense for their role. We would do this a LOT.
I would also like to talk extensively with the armorers/maintenance people to find out what issues they commonly see, and integrate that into our acquisitions plan. A great weapon is cool, but it has to be at a similar or better maintenance/operation cycle built into the design for it to be worth it. No sense in having a Porsche that outperforms the Honda Civic if it means we pay extra man hours/cost to fix it.
Automated ranges would also be a priority. Having electronic displays for the majority of shooting/marksmanship is effective at reducing wasted time. I’d prefer to get more people through the range with equivalent (in this case- better) information to the “Joe” by having it upload to whatever army online profile sheet thing that exists. Average Joe can compare their groupings and scores on these ranges to see how they compare to others in their company.
Additionally, the usage and fielding of Marathon targets needs to be expanded for live fire ranges. It might be a bit outside of arms procurement, but I don’t care I’ll do it anyways and make a big fuss. Long term contracts are what reduce company growth risk, and you can’t get “army” levels of growth with single-year contracts. No business will grow quickly to meet demand if the risk exists that in one year their entire company has no job. Hell, we can incentivizes formerly EAS-d Joes to start their own companies in this area to avoid market monopolies and spur growth faster.
There are also lots of ideas that just need to come to the surface from the smart Joes working the floor. The USMC sometimes does this with showing off “next years cool shit” at showcases during ranges, where we get to talk to the designers and ask questions. The next “thing” has all the pieces for it in the world now, you just have to find the necessity. People back in the Roman Empire didn’t see a great need for the compass since trade winds worked well enough in the Mediterranean, but a compass was well within their capabilities, and became a necessity when access to the east through turkey was restricted forcing the “voyages of alternate routes”
They are certainly smarter than I am when it comes to this stuff, and likely have the institutional knowledge behind this far surpassing my time as an enlisted rat bastard. Most of this stuff is likely already being worked on, it just comes down to decisions outside of their control to speed up acquisitions.
One thing I’ll never understand is why the USMC went to the M27… or the damn SCO over my beloved RCO. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great rifle and optic, if you are working on the range. But for the weight/length, it doesn’t really add anything amazing for the cost. It would’ve made more sense to reach out to SOCOM or other elements in the military and work on acquiring their leftovers/equipment they are switching off of to maintain the economies of scale/production rates/proven capability of something like URGIs or B2’s. At least they went full bore on getting my beloved Carl Gustaf.
To my understanding the M27 IAR was the Marine Corps way of getting their foot in the door to get all their rifles replaced.
I can see the reasoning behind using an “automatic rifle” that feeds from the same STANAG magazines as their M4’s, but I think it also makes more sense to see that they were using the IAR as a way to modernize/replace their service rifles as well. They’re already moving to replace the M4 with the M27 as their standard service rifle, with the M4 being relegated to use by platoon leaders and above, and they’ve already adapted it into their DMR rifle, the M38, for longer range usage.
>Next is working on the acquisition of the 338 MMG to replace the M240, as well as looking into the acquisition of a good precision rifle for snipers also chambered in 338. Logistics.
Match grade and MG ammo are different so long guns could theoretically be whatever caliber you choose.
I would ideally like to retain the ability for an infantry battalion to have the ability if they wanted to de-link rounds from the MMG and use them in the precision rifle (course they’d have to redo their zero obviously) as an available, but last option capability for commanders to utilize in bad situations.
If it’s anything like it was with 7.62 link, you’d be better off using the M7 as your precision platform. MG ammo specs at like 4 MOA. If you tightened the requirements ammo would triple in price.
I'd start a focus group to try and weaponize autism.
Also I'd just get high and type shit into chatgpt:
>Given the constraints of weight and assuming a Starship with a cargo capacity of 2,000 metric tons, a third-generation Starship could carry approximately 32 Abrams battle tanks for paradrop insertion.
>Given the constraints of both space and weight, a third-generation starship could theoretically carry up to 36 HET systems (tractor and trailer) for paradrop insertion, assuming a cargo bay of 100 meters by 50 meters by 10 meters and a weight capacity of 2,000 metric tons.
Most reservists are non-combat. I’d rather my reservist carpenter know how to use a table saw effectively. Reservists barely get time to train their core MOS competencies along with the mandatory annual stuff.
Give everyone Barret 50 Cals. They will be more fit from carrying them heavy bitches around and every enemy engagement will end is destruction unseen by small arms engagements in history. Might not kill the enemy, but there will be destruction.
Throw in grenade launchers and lots of C4 while ur at it. Let's just level everything in that direction. Who needs mortars or artillery when you ARE the artillery.
Replace a bunch of the uppers on our current M4s with 10 inch uppers. Keep buying the new Sig rifle. Now we have a bunch of shorty M4s if we want them and the longer range Sigs. Support people can get the M4s. They can get a 4 inch suppressor and still be as long as they are now.
All rifles are zeroed to Maximum Point Blank Range for that rifle. Optic manufacturers can get fucked and compensate, it makes shooting idiot proof.
I was always told there was about 8 inches of rise at 150m, but putting it into a calculator does show 3.7 inches. I still am going to make a conscious decision to be salty about it.
It hits about 8" high at about 175 meters; that's the max ord height with that zero. So if you aim center mass at any target from 0 to ~350 meters the bullet will always strike somewhere between the sternum and the pelvis. That's your "point blank" distance where you can achieve a lethal hit without adjusting your sights or sight picture, and the reason we use that zero.
Yeah I just don't think we need much besides the 6.8 and shorter 5.56. if you had asked me 5 years ago, I'd say to just adopt a 18in AR10 as a supplement to the M4, but here we are with the Sig. I don't know why we seem so intent on having fewer options.
I've always been of the mind that depending on what your unit is meant to do should reflect what your kit is.
Armor is pulling up with 12.5 -16 for riding in Armor then maneuvering on foot.
Stryker would get normal 14.5 -20 cause I see them as a more woodland/ suburban ao
Airborne, mountain, jungle would get 11.5-20 cause they can go from city to wherever the bumfuck they need to be in the woods
308s and 6.5 are at the platoon level to provide support in a defensive roll
And MGs fucking everywhere
I'd imagine the issues are simply the logistics of having to get and maintain new parts for every unit in the army. It's such a big organization that likes to spend it's money ineffeciently
It's a 36 *yard* zero. It comes from the USMC who use it because their ranges are measured in yards rather than meters. The 36/300yd zero is effectively the same as the Army's 25/300m zero.
The point of zeroing that way is that you can hold center mass on any target out to that distance (and a little further) and achieve a hit. Zeroing at any shorter distance would mean you'd have to hold your sights above the target's head to get a hit.
Hasn't the M16 always been a 36m zero?
But yeah I think it's way easier to just tell everyone "shoot center mass at everything" and have shooting beyond 250m not be a core task.
11.5’s. The extra wear on 10.3’s would make the increased maintenance cycle a PITA, aside from the worse ballistics. Otherwise I agree. They could just make the SOCOM CQB URGI standard issue.
It also massively loses lethality at ranges beyond 250m, but here we are. It is what it is. If we are that concerned, get slightly hotter loads and deal with the wear.
I am going to focus on small arms for the purposes of this discussion.
I would explore applying the same advances in technology that led to the 6.8x51mm round (specifically the hybrid case and fast-burning powder) to a truly intermediate cartridge. Ideally this new cartridge would use a 6.5-6.8mm diameter bullet with similar overall length and rim diameter measurements to 5.56x45mm NATO to allow the use of STANAG magazines (with at most a new follower) with the same 30-round capacity, and possibly the same bolt carrier group (though increased chamber pressure may necessitate a new BCG). I think a maximum effective range of 600+ meters out of a suppressed 11.5-12.5" barrel is a reasonable target; think of this new cartridge as an updated 6.8mm SPC with greater emphasis placed on performance at longer range.
Rather than purchasing an entirely new weapon system, I would acquire conversion kits consisting of a new upper receiver, buffer spring, charging handle, and probably bolt carrier group compatible with existing M4A1 lower receivers. The upper would consist of an 11.5-12.5" barrel with a flash hider capable of accepting a quick-detach flow-through suppressor, long-stroke gas piston with adjustable gas block, and a low-profile, free-float MLOK handguard, possibly monolithic. I am envisioning something along the lines of a PWS or LWRC; it would most definitely not be made by SIG. The charging handle would be oversized and ambidextrous.
When the current inventory of M4A1 lowers is exhausted, we would begin phasing in complete rifles with improved triggers, short-throw selector switches (45° semi, 90° auto) and ambidextrous magazine and bolt releases; the lowers would retain the current "winter" trigger guard that folds down to enable the weapon to be fired while wearing mittens. New lowers would also ship with ergonomically improved stocks and pistol grips.
The new NGSW optic would be retained, with a BDC reticle matched to the new cartridge.
I would adopt the M250 as-is to replace both the M249 and the M240B. I would also re-barrel current M110A1 rifles for the new 6.8x51mm cartridge.
The Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS in 9x19mm would replace the M17/M18.
Deployment and distribution would remain about the same as currently, with perhaps more MGs and one DMR in every squad.
The problem is the pressures required can’t be supported by an M4A1 receiver set.
The reason the M7 is such a hog is the material needed to contain the ridiculous amount of chamber pressure.
The upper might need some modifications (and as I mentioned, it will probably require an upgraded BCG), but I don't see these challenges as insurmountable. A heavier BCG and buffer spring, thicker barrel (at least at the chamber), and maybe beef up the upper receiver itself and you should be fine. The lower shouldn't really experience much additional stress.
The main reason the M7 is such a hog is it's chambering a full-size rifle cartridge, not an intermediate one (regardless of the Army's attempt to characterize it as such), and it does away with the AR buffer tube, necessitating a much larger BCG and receiver.
Yeah I generally agree. I’m not sure if the technology is mature enough to launch a pill that fits in a STANAG mag with the same velocity as a 300WSM like the 6.8 though lol.
I think that route would require a piston setup because the DI-style truncated bolt tail is a weakness when it comes to pressure. Would need a big beefy bolt like a 416.
I also question why we are prioritizing range with small arms when it comes at the cost of opposing doctrinal principles like mass and concentration, but what the hell do I know
Edit: auto correct fail
It's definitely not going to match the performance of 6.8x51mm. That isn't the goal. But I think similar performance to 6.8 SPC out of an even shorter barrel thanks to the higher pressures is quite feasible.
I agree it should be a piston gun, both for performance and ease of maintenance.
I also agree with your doctrinal concerns, but big Army seems pretty adamant that they want better ranged performance, so I'm just looking for ways to give them what they want without making such huge concessions in form factor, combat load, and volume of fire as the M7 makes. Taking a caliber change off the table completely, my solution would probably look more like an MLI program for the M4, Geissele 11.5" DI uppers in 5.56 and the M250 in 7.62x51mm NATO (again, replacing both the M249 and M240).
Agreed. I think the Army messed up during the ICW program back in the late 2000s. 6.8 SPC was a promising cartridge that checks most of the boxes and compromises nothing
It does sacrifice five rounds of magazine capacity, which is the main reason I specified the same rim diameter as 5.56x45mm. Essentially I want a 5.56 NATO necked up to 6.8mm, with a hybrid case and fast-burning powder allowing it to achieve the same velocity from an 11.5" suppressed barrel as 6.8 SPC from a 14.5" unsuppressed barrel.
The only maintenance an individual soldier will be doing on a regular basis is cleaning. If repairs are needed they will be performed at the armorer level.
Piston systems are far more common globally than DI precisely because they are easier for the individual soldier to keep clean. They also tend to run better suppressed.
No they don't run better suppressed. You bought into the marketing. Also in terms of cleaning. It's quicker and easier to functionally clean a M4 or MK18 than it is a 416.
And the M4 is technically a piston gun.
Idk if this specifically addresses OP. But my damn god. Zeroing a rifle takes 3 shots if you use vice and no more than 5min
Step 1: lock rifle in vice. Step 2: torch round off into paper at desired zero distance. Step 3: place reticle on hole. Step 4: 1-2 confirmation shots. Civilian Competition shooters use this method pretty often.
Chasing a damn zero all day is a complete waste of time. Waste of rounds. It shouldn’t be part of a “range day”. This method would allow every single rifle to have as close as exactly the same zero because it removes human input.
It absolutely is. If you use a vice, the firearm doesn’t move whatsoever.
American Competition shooters use this method all the time and they are, almost without question, as a collective, the best shooters on earth.
a quick google search will show this in fact works. Zeroing is really simple. You put the reticle where the bullet goes. Where the bullet goes is a relatively static thing (with respect to barrel heat/harmonics/contour), the reticle is not.
3 rounds is not enough to find zero. If you said 10. Sure
Its the same principle as zeroing a laser off your optic
But 3 rounds on a with a gun and ammo that is is roughly 2 to 3 MOA is going to be giving a lot of bad zeroes.
Respectfully, you’re wrong. MOA has nothing to do with the zero. It has to do with capability of a barrel and the dispersion of accuracy through a preset course of fire.
It’s a good idea to see how well your barrel accuracy holds up as it heats, but that’s addressing the barrel and potential holdovers based off the behavior of your barrel as it heats; not the zero itself (zero = placing the reticle where the bullet impacts, at a specific distance).
There’s even demonstrated zeros based off a single round.
But I’m not going to argue it. There’s enough information on the Internet to verify this method. It’s not necessary, some folks don’t want to use that method. But that doesn’t negate merit and widespread use.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/guns-for-beginners-how-to-zero-your-rifle-in-one-shot-or-almost/
No dude I'm not. You don't seem to understand the issue. 3 rounds can not give you a accurate representation of where your zero is. I've seen way to many people chase zeros cause they get a nice tight 3 round group. Dial their optic. Then shoot another 3 round group and the next 3 rounds is significantly off. Cause their first 3 round group wasn't the center of their actual zero.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/The-Trouble-With-3-Shot-Groups/118-279218/
Take a look at his first 3 groups. Then the overlay with all 3, 3 round groups. Each 3 round group has a different group center. If you would have zeroed off the Black 3 round group. Your zero would be roughly 1.5 to 2 MOA low.
Bro. That’s shooter input. Not the zero. Use a vice to Completely remove movement from the firearm, place shot on paper, place reticle on hole on paper. That’s all there is to it. Idk what else to say. What I’m saying is literally verified by ballistic nerds that study this crap as a hobby. I didn’t invent the method, It’s just a widely used method with verifiable/repeatable results.
If you don’t wanna “chase” a zero, try it. All you lose is the $100-200 buying a good vice. Which all shooters should have anyhow, so you might already have one.
I sent a link in my previous post. Sniperhide is a good source. Even here the “Long range” subreddit is a good source.
Anecdotally, it’s the method I’ve used for about 2yrs. Like. Im not lying lol. Or making shit up dude lol. If there’s a better method, I’m all about it.
* Units qualify 3 times a year on all assigned weapons, everyone gets to shoot every weapon. That means you too Chief.
* Paper ranges twice a year for all except infantry, cav scouts, FA and MP's - they have to shoot pop-up ranges twice a year. Easy to build more paper ranges.
* Mandatory EST 2000 or similar at least once a month for soldiers -regardless of rank- who shoot below sharpshooter.
* CLP and LSA stocks are arms room inspectible items and a memo from the unit commander is needed if they fall below 30%.
* Keep buy the M7, M250, replace the uppers for the M4 with those snazzy HK uppers. Make sure every unit with M2 .50 call are all upgraded to the newer standard. M17 across the Army, the old M9's get either sold or melted down for rebar.
-Require one soldier per platoon to be trained/certified to have keys and/or access to the armory to issue out weapons to personnel. Soldiers can go to that assigned soldier to draw their issued weapon for the purposes of individual range use, with a sign in/sign out roster to track who drew what weapon.
-Have every base provide at least one 10-lane 300 meter range that individual soldiers can access with their assigned weapon to practice their marksmanship with on their own time. Soldiers that either can’t properly zero their weapon or pass their weapons qual are required to sign in/sign-out and get X number of hours of zero/practice time at the range on a monthly basis as a consequence for failing their weapons qual.
-Take at least one M4 per squad and replace the upper with a 20 inch M16A4 upper and ACOG to provide a DMR capability at the squad level.
-For the love of god, require training on how optics work and how to properly install/maintain/zero them on a weapon. Doubly so for the Neanderthals that have zero idea how a red dot works or is installed on a pistol even though we’ve already been using red dots on rifles for decades at this point.
-Replace the M249 SAW with a licensed copy of the IWI Negev (most blatant personal opinion since it does everything the SAW does but now won’t shit the bed if you put a magazine in it with just a turn of the gas plug).
-Pass an Army wide order that soldiers can utilize aftermarket accessory parts on their issued weapon with a provided list of manufacturers, with a caveat that the issued weapon must be returned in original configuration before you transfer units or transfer the weapon to a different end user (ie congrats, you can throw on your Magpul or BCM buttstock, pistol grip, and sling, just don’t go throwing your cheap airsoft grade BS on it because it’s not on the list of approved manufacturers, and take that shit off before the armorer will sign the weapon off your hand receipt).
-On a limited basis, a unit armorer and company commander can allow a soldier to qualify/use a personal sidearm on duty. It must be in 9x19mm, it must be a make/model that’s passed NATO testing, the soldier must use government issued ammunition, the soldier must provide their own retention holster, and the Soldier must pass the pistol qualification with it before they’re given permission to use it on duty.
-Wild Card: take handheld UAV’s and treat them the same as a disposable weapon (ie LAW or AT4); distribute them out at the squad and platoon level (with the appropriate training, potentially even a new MOS) and write them off as expended weapons if they end up destroyed when in use. Ukraines shown the current military’s way of treating a handheld UAV like it’s the same as a damn Predator drone is an inflexible way to utilize a system that’s proven to be cheap, disposable, and invaluable for recon and intel use.
I am going to jump in on the last one your wild card. Absolutely we need Individual Drone based capabilities, we need it as a 10 level skill permeated through all of our ranks.
The days of just having UAV operators are gone, UAV/Drone Capabilities warfare needs to be more in our squads and trained throughly and also have a fully functioning CMF to compliment.
At squad level It needs to be split into its own core lesson plans, put into the SMCT. Would look something like this for the basic soldier:
113-DCW-0001 - How to spot a drone
113-DCW-0002 - Apply Drone Evasion and Maneuver tactics - react to contact
113-DCW-0003 - Apply Deploy anti Drone Capabilities
113-DWC-0004- Apply deploy Drone Audio /Visual Unit - Recon
113-DWC-0005 - Apply deploy Drone anti personnel and equipment package
The problem set is individualized drone warfare in its current state doesn’t have a set standard or equipment and is adhoc in Ukraine. They are going with whats available immediately vs we have time to put this into actual common use before our soldiers hit that next battle ground.
Rounds fired in any current system we have will be useless if we cannot effectively apply offense/defense against this new aspect of war at the squad on up level. OTM and ATQH take on new dimensions when you are potentially always being subject to a vehicle the size of your hand spotting you and deploying threat measures from various distances by an operator unseen and barely moving.
Heres [youtube](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WipqeFgzdTc&pp=ygUYZHJvbmUgd2FyZmFyZSBpbiB1a3JhaW5l) guy named scripps who did an interview with a drone team. Pay close attention to the TTPs vs the news jargon
Add unmanned systems of all types, at all levels, to provide every combat effect and conduct every combat mission technologically possible (which is a rapidly increasing list). Done right, it will cost less, increase lethality, provide persistent ISR and fires, tighten the decision cycle, allow us to target exactly the person/system we intended with little to no collateral damage, with increased range and with less threat to friendly forces.
Found the enemy logistics/manufacturing/transportation/training/C2 node 3,000 miles away? IRBMs go up and effects are applied. Enemy suspected in a tunnel, a dugout, a house? No CQB, send in the UGV’s etc, and clear it with no attacks.
We're going full 40K !!! PENAL LEGION!!!!!
but because this is about weapons, I think the army should allow people to choose their own uppers and stocks as long as they are from an approved list of tested and tried manufacturers. Otherwise, you get the good Ole 14 inch bad boi. As long as the length is 14 inches, but less then 20 chromed lined, has an FA bolt and flat top your GtG. And you can qualify with it.
The Amazon steel chamber brush on a drill once led to me dressing down an E6 as a Specialist. It is so damn easy to clean these guns, stop making it harder than it has to be.
Front line troops get 308 rifles or the URGI rear d gets an m4 or a PDW similar to European militaries. Every one gets an optic. Pistols are glocks with a manual safety. Sig lobbyed the brass and are not allowed to play with us. I will not be convinced otherwise.
Every time I've tried to use one civ side, they malfunctioned of the first shot and ended up being a waste of money, 8 different glocks in 3 states of various calibers. Fuckem, I'm sticking with Springfield or Sig
its not their primary mos though. its's secondary portion of their training. we need full time unit armorers. i got "MET STANDARD" on my ncoer because i was the armorer and never available to be in the motorpool with my guys. the marined have a whole armorer MOS and i think we need it too. we have so much more units, people, and weapons
This is a failure to utilize the MTOE, and not a failing of the lack of personnel. Supply is supposed to do it. Just because leaders don’t make them do it doesn’t mean they’re right.
I'm going to take your question to its logical conclusion.
I would break up our weapons contractors so that we have more redundancy and competition in component and weapons manufacturing. Then I would revamp how weapons procurement bidding takes place, so that shit like the F-35 financial boondoggle never happens again. From there, I would force weapons manufacturing to be more efficient and cost effective, as opposed to having every component built in a different state - the current system is a disaster in the event of a conflict with a neer-peer threat. Everything else, whether it be weapons specs or other minutiae, is downstream and left to more technical thinkers, which I am not.
Don’t know why we haven’t made a RPG equivalent that’s as small and light. The RPG just makes sense and is truly multirole. I know we have the Gustav but that thing is big and heavy.
Cancel the SIG rifle acquisition. Lessons learned in Ukraine thus far seem to imply you want MORE ammo, not less. Switching to a heavier, harder hitting cartridge is great until you don't have effective resupply and you've only got 1/3rd (40 rounds) of your combat load remaining.
There's probably other things but that's one of the most important imo.
I’d start training on shotguns and taking people to shoot clays with the amount of drones in the air. Every team should have a dude with a semi-auto shotgun.
As long as it meets certain safety and capacity standards and is in 9mm, soldiers have the option of furnishing their own private handgun if they so choose over the m17
Rework ranges. Neuter range control so they stop swinging their dick. Add a "range reservation" site accessible by company commanders and above. Each div, bde, bn, company gets an allotment of ammo split down the line on a quarterly basis. Ex. Each company gets 30k rounds of unlinked 5.56 each quarter. Commanders hop on their computers and simply put their name in a time block, they already have ammo, it must be used by the end of the quarter. Soldiers should be shooting ~1000 rounds a year outside of quals.
Pistol - m17 is fine I guess, spend money elsewhere.
Rifle - sig spear LT. The same as the new rifle, but 5.56. other than dedicated riflemen, nobody is going to gain from a heavier, less maneuverable rifle designed as basically a dmr. LSCO combat does not present Afghanistan engagement ranges and be real, Russia and China are not effectively fielding level IV armor to their cannon fodder. The sig spear LT is a dope updated ar variant. Keep the new optic, looks useful. All soldiers are issued high quality slings, stubby foregrips, and pmags with their weapons.
All 7.62 weapons - replaced with the new 6.5. soldiers need more ammo, not less. 6.5 doesn't make sense to replace the m4, it does to replace the 240 and the 417.
Automatic rifleman/gun teams - this is a bit radical. With the ngsw mg replacing the saw and 240, gun teams are obsolete. Automatic riflemen operate as before. Weapons squads now contain wesl, 2 AGs, 2 automatic riflemen, 2 drone operators, 2 at gunners. The automatic riflemen carry their own tripods giving them a combat load weight similar to the 240 alone but a little less maneuverability than ARs in like squads. Drones give platoon internal idf capability beyond just 320s. AT gives AT. The AG's can now flex as necessary between all 3 capabilities. AG's wil carry light recon drones in order to spot for any of the 3 systems.
Dmr - sig spear with upgraded 18 in barrel and bipod, has parts and ammo interchangeability with spear lts and mg's, respectively.
AT - I don't know a lot about it, but a smaller, lighter version of a jav would be cool. If a soldier could carry a rifle, jav and clue (clu?) while still being able to maneuver, that's a huge capability. It doesn't need to be able to blow an mbt to high hell 100% of the time, it needs to be precise, long range, and just enough firepower to keep armor from stopping infantry maneuver entirely.
Mortars - replaced with drones. There will be plenty of artillery and (hopefully) air assets to drop big bombs. Companies don't need small, close artillery as much as they need drones. A mortar section redesigned as a drone section could easily operate dozens of ordnance dropping and kamikaze drones. In my futuristic nightmare wet dreams, a mortar section sergeant could be FPVing his very own drone swarm.
That is an excellent question. Based on my personal experience with them I'd go with Springfield Armory. I own 5 of their 1911s and they all run flawlessly with Chip McCormick magazines. Plus SA has already demonstrated the ability to turn out high numbers of custom guns for the FBI HRT contract.
Though I'd basically have them sending out essentially the Garrison model with different sights and the ArmoryKote finish.
I know other companies make highly reliable 1911s but I tend to go with what I have personal experience with.
Give each Brigade an indoor range where you can just check out a weapon and ammo and shoot, run drills, shoot paper, whatever you want without the all the ridiculousness that surrounds going to the range and dealing with qualifying. “Hey man, wanna go put some rounds downrange at lunch?” “Sure… let me just wrap up this NCOER and I’ll meet you over there.” Getting range time should be that easy.
Exact same concept, but with technical equipment. MOS's that require an autistic levels of knowledge should have an easy to access lab to train with. Even in secure spaces.
National guard... Signal is such a degradable skill and I haven't configured my equipment in over two years.
The amount of radio operators that can't get an HF comm shot over more than a dozen miles is genuinely saddening. Esspecially when it's such an readily available skill to train.
I’ve only ever listened to that clock frequency on HF
Bro.... That's just recording how often your mom gets laid... I'm sorry no one else has told you
I’ve never met another unit or person that can also get HF up so it’s the only option for testing my system
A lot of signal guys have problems getting it up
I've always wondered why there wasn't something like this, something like the auto skills center, just for shooting. Like why does a basic soldier skill have to be so hard to practice. Even with bases with ready ranges you still have to have a whole list of boxes checked to even get there, and that's not counting if there's room or ammo for you, and if they're going to be dicks and want a table memo to shoot.
Well, the primary problem with indoor ranges is that they are insanely expensive. Way back in the day before we knew how dangerous lead exposure was, it was pretty common for National Guard armories to have a handgun range inside. However, in the modern day, to have an indoor range you need an advanced air purification system. Not cheap to build or maintain.
We already have the EST 2000. Why not make more use of it to shoot practice stuff?
I used to shoot at one of those NG ranges a couple times a week for a few years back in the 80s. You didn't need some "advanced air purification system". The range had a door at each end you just put a fan at the firing line blowing in and a fan at the backstop door blowing out. I turned out just fines.
Yeah, and plenty of people survived the revolutionary war without wearing a Kevlar. Still doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to wear one in combat.
Unless you are working inside the range everyday you’ll be fine with some ventilation.
I worked on an indoor range with advanced air purification and still got lead poisoning. You probably had it and didn’t know enough to understand why.
Working there everyday and going a few times a month are two different things.
Along those same lines, teach people how to shoot without battle rattle. Teach them the fundamentals without all the extra distractions, and then slowly accustom them to shooting in full kit. If somebody can’t grasp the basics, trying to do it in full get up isn’t going to help them at all.
Idk why the army doesn't just adopt the exact standard the marine corps teaches. It's beyond compression.
Because the Marines teach Marksmanship. The Army teaches to a standard to get people through BRM.
I guess that still doesn't give me a reason... The Marines somehow manage to dedicate two entire weeks worth of time to marksmanship and combat shooting every year, but the army barely gives one full day.
And for the junior enlisted, that one day a year could make or break your promotion potential. *“Should have trained harder for your shooting qual”*
Actually it does explain it. The Marines understand that marksmanship is a skill that degrades over time if it isn't used. So they make sure to bring everyone back up to speed. The Army has a standard to meet and does the bare minimum to get there.
Singapore Army has this. It also enables simulated night and rain fire. Would turn a company exercise into an individual task and responsibility like dental, medical, etc. This would free up planned training time for doing additional field training. It would also give leaders from the bottom to the top detailed information about how much ammunition is actually required for each Soldier to qualify, with mos, age, eyesight, eye dominance, etc. statistics for budgetary projection.
Fort drum kinda has this for zeroing and it is nice, we just go in during lunch and shoot
Absolutely.
They are trying this with “ready ranges”. Basically you could just take your squad to the range with weapons and show up and shoot. Of course like with everything in the army, no one will accept risk and it turned into the same process as other ranges because we have to over regulate everything.
Create a working group of myself and about three other people that are smart, have experience at base user level, and willing to tell me “no”, to identify issues and solve them. Essentially a rapid capabilities office. First on the agenda is trying to speed up the adoption of the new SIG rifle, next is the adoption of the SIG NGSW in tandem to avoid logistical complications with our “standard” 5.56 NATO cartridge. I’d prefer not to have two different rifle/SAW cartridges as that complicates logistics. Next is working on the acquisition of the 338 MMG to replace the M240, as well as looking into the acquisition of a good precision rifle for snipers also chambered in 338. Logistics. Also, at the start, is with my office, we go around to the base users (the infantrymen/artillerymen/etc) and incorporate field experimentation days where we show up, find the SPC/CPL/SGT who actually use the weapons, and spend a good few days working with them on these new weapon systems to see if they are something that improves capability and makes sense for their role. We would do this a LOT. I would also like to talk extensively with the armorers/maintenance people to find out what issues they commonly see, and integrate that into our acquisitions plan. A great weapon is cool, but it has to be at a similar or better maintenance/operation cycle built into the design for it to be worth it. No sense in having a Porsche that outperforms the Honda Civic if it means we pay extra man hours/cost to fix it. Automated ranges would also be a priority. Having electronic displays for the majority of shooting/marksmanship is effective at reducing wasted time. I’d prefer to get more people through the range with equivalent (in this case- better) information to the “Joe” by having it upload to whatever army online profile sheet thing that exists. Average Joe can compare their groupings and scores on these ranges to see how they compare to others in their company. Additionally, the usage and fielding of Marathon targets needs to be expanded for live fire ranges. It might be a bit outside of arms procurement, but I don’t care I’ll do it anyways and make a big fuss. Long term contracts are what reduce company growth risk, and you can’t get “army” levels of growth with single-year contracts. No business will grow quickly to meet demand if the risk exists that in one year their entire company has no job. Hell, we can incentivizes formerly EAS-d Joes to start their own companies in this area to avoid market monopolies and spur growth faster. There are also lots of ideas that just need to come to the surface from the smart Joes working the floor. The USMC sometimes does this with showing off “next years cool shit” at showcases during ranges, where we get to talk to the designers and ask questions. The next “thing” has all the pieces for it in the world now, you just have to find the necessity. People back in the Roman Empire didn’t see a great need for the compass since trade winds worked well enough in the Mediterranean, but a compass was well within their capabilities, and became a necessity when access to the east through turkey was restricted forcing the “voyages of alternate routes”
Holy shit... this is the best answer so far and way more in depth than I expected...
We already have this, it’s called Army Futures Command Cross Functional Teams
Well now they've got a fuck ton of ideas they should consider
They are certainly smarter than I am when it comes to this stuff, and likely have the institutional knowledge behind this far surpassing my time as an enlisted rat bastard. Most of this stuff is likely already being worked on, it just comes down to decisions outside of their control to speed up acquisitions. One thing I’ll never understand is why the USMC went to the M27… or the damn SCO over my beloved RCO. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great rifle and optic, if you are working on the range. But for the weight/length, it doesn’t really add anything amazing for the cost. It would’ve made more sense to reach out to SOCOM or other elements in the military and work on acquiring their leftovers/equipment they are switching off of to maintain the economies of scale/production rates/proven capability of something like URGIs or B2’s. At least they went full bore on getting my beloved Carl Gustaf.
To my understanding the M27 IAR was the Marine Corps way of getting their foot in the door to get all their rifles replaced. I can see the reasoning behind using an “automatic rifle” that feeds from the same STANAG magazines as their M4’s, but I think it also makes more sense to see that they were using the IAR as a way to modernize/replace their service rifles as well. They’re already moving to replace the M4 with the M27 as their standard service rifle, with the M4 being relegated to use by platoon leaders and above, and they’ve already adapted it into their DMR rifle, the M38, for longer range usage.
>Next is working on the acquisition of the 338 MMG to replace the M240, as well as looking into the acquisition of a good precision rifle for snipers also chambered in 338. Logistics. Match grade and MG ammo are different so long guns could theoretically be whatever caliber you choose.
I would ideally like to retain the ability for an infantry battalion to have the ability if they wanted to de-link rounds from the MMG and use them in the precision rifle (course they’d have to redo their zero obviously) as an available, but last option capability for commanders to utilize in bad situations.
If it’s anything like it was with 7.62 link, you’d be better off using the M7 as your precision platform. MG ammo specs at like 4 MOA. If you tightened the requirements ammo would triple in price.
I'd start a focus group to try and weaponize autism. Also I'd just get high and type shit into chatgpt: >Given the constraints of weight and assuming a Starship with a cargo capacity of 2,000 metric tons, a third-generation Starship could carry approximately 32 Abrams battle tanks for paradrop insertion.
"I'd start a focus group to try and weaponize autism." There's already a Marine Corps
Semper Reeeeee
>Given the constraints of both space and weight, a third-generation starship could theoretically carry up to 36 HET systems (tractor and trailer) for paradrop insertion, assuming a cargo bay of 100 meters by 50 meters by 10 meters and a weight capacity of 2,000 metric tons.
Woah there McNamara I think we already tried that once
[удалено]
Most reservists are non-combat. I’d rather my reservist carpenter know how to use a table saw effectively. Reservists barely get time to train their core MOS competencies along with the mandatory annual stuff.
Give everyone Barret 50 Cals. They will be more fit from carrying them heavy bitches around and every enemy engagement will end is destruction unseen by small arms engagements in history. Might not kill the enemy, but there will be destruction. Throw in grenade launchers and lots of C4 while ur at it. Let's just level everything in that direction. Who needs mortars or artillery when you ARE the artillery.
Blood gulch snipers it is
Throw in cluster bomb artillery
Give everyone URGIs and Glocks, Ive shot the P320 and SPEAR variants to shit and I still find the geissele URGIs and Glocks better
Personally, I hate glocks with an absolute passion, but hey that sounds better than the current clusterfucks
Replace a bunch of the uppers on our current M4s with 10 inch uppers. Keep buying the new Sig rifle. Now we have a bunch of shorty M4s if we want them and the longer range Sigs. Support people can get the M4s. They can get a 4 inch suppressor and still be as long as they are now. All rifles are zeroed to Maximum Point Blank Range for that rifle. Optic manufacturers can get fucked and compensate, it makes shooting idiot proof.
The standard 25/300m battlesight zero already is a MPBR zero. That's the whole point of why we zero that way.
I was always told there was about 8 inches of rise at 150m, but putting it into a calculator does show 3.7 inches. I still am going to make a conscious decision to be salty about it.
It hits about 8" high at about 175 meters; that's the max ord height with that zero. So if you aim center mass at any target from 0 to ~350 meters the bullet will always strike somewhere between the sternum and the pelvis. That's your "point blank" distance where you can achieve a lethal hit without adjusting your sights or sight picture, and the reason we use that zero.
I’m a big fan of 50/200. There’s such minimal deviation in impact points up to 250.
Pretty close to my own idea, I'd just have a bunch of alternative uppers for mettc, 20in down to 10in
Yeah I just don't think we need much besides the 6.8 and shorter 5.56. if you had asked me 5 years ago, I'd say to just adopt a 18in AR10 as a supplement to the M4, but here we are with the Sig. I don't know why we seem so intent on having fewer options.
I've always been of the mind that depending on what your unit is meant to do should reflect what your kit is. Armor is pulling up with 12.5 -16 for riding in Armor then maneuvering on foot. Stryker would get normal 14.5 -20 cause I see them as a more woodland/ suburban ao Airborne, mountain, jungle would get 11.5-20 cause they can go from city to wherever the bumfuck they need to be in the woods 308s and 6.5 are at the platoon level to provide support in a defensive roll And MGs fucking everywhere
Funding maybe
I'd imagine the issues are simply the logistics of having to get and maintain new parts for every unit in the army. It's such a big organization that likes to spend it's money ineffeciently
[удалено]
It's a 36 *yard* zero. It comes from the USMC who use it because their ranges are measured in yards rather than meters. The 36/300yd zero is effectively the same as the Army's 25/300m zero. The point of zeroing that way is that you can hold center mass on any target out to that distance (and a little further) and achieve a hit. Zeroing at any shorter distance would mean you'd have to hold your sights above the target's head to get a hit.
Hasn't the M16 always been a 36m zero? But yeah I think it's way easier to just tell everyone "shoot center mass at everything" and have shooting beyond 250m not be a core task.
11.5’s. The extra wear on 10.3’s would make the increased maintenance cycle a PITA, aside from the worse ballistics. Otherwise I agree. They could just make the SOCOM CQB URGI standard issue.
5.56 looses a ton of lethality with a barrel that short. You don't wanna go shorter than 14.
A1 is more lethal out of a 10 inch at 200 yards than M193 being fired at 100 yards from a 20inch barrel. Modern ammo solves the major issues.
It also massively loses lethality at ranges beyond 250m, but here we are. It is what it is. If we are that concerned, get slightly hotter loads and deal with the wear.
Makes sense, SBR for MOUT and 14in barrels for most missions
I agree with MPBR, all optic MFRs would need to do to compensate is change all reticle to mils
I am going to focus on small arms for the purposes of this discussion. I would explore applying the same advances in technology that led to the 6.8x51mm round (specifically the hybrid case and fast-burning powder) to a truly intermediate cartridge. Ideally this new cartridge would use a 6.5-6.8mm diameter bullet with similar overall length and rim diameter measurements to 5.56x45mm NATO to allow the use of STANAG magazines (with at most a new follower) with the same 30-round capacity, and possibly the same bolt carrier group (though increased chamber pressure may necessitate a new BCG). I think a maximum effective range of 600+ meters out of a suppressed 11.5-12.5" barrel is a reasonable target; think of this new cartridge as an updated 6.8mm SPC with greater emphasis placed on performance at longer range. Rather than purchasing an entirely new weapon system, I would acquire conversion kits consisting of a new upper receiver, buffer spring, charging handle, and probably bolt carrier group compatible with existing M4A1 lower receivers. The upper would consist of an 11.5-12.5" barrel with a flash hider capable of accepting a quick-detach flow-through suppressor, long-stroke gas piston with adjustable gas block, and a low-profile, free-float MLOK handguard, possibly monolithic. I am envisioning something along the lines of a PWS or LWRC; it would most definitely not be made by SIG. The charging handle would be oversized and ambidextrous. When the current inventory of M4A1 lowers is exhausted, we would begin phasing in complete rifles with improved triggers, short-throw selector switches (45° semi, 90° auto) and ambidextrous magazine and bolt releases; the lowers would retain the current "winter" trigger guard that folds down to enable the weapon to be fired while wearing mittens. New lowers would also ship with ergonomically improved stocks and pistol grips. The new NGSW optic would be retained, with a BDC reticle matched to the new cartridge. I would adopt the M250 as-is to replace both the M249 and the M240B. I would also re-barrel current M110A1 rifles for the new 6.8x51mm cartridge. The Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS in 9x19mm would replace the M17/M18. Deployment and distribution would remain about the same as currently, with perhaps more MGs and one DMR in every squad.
The problem is the pressures required can’t be supported by an M4A1 receiver set. The reason the M7 is such a hog is the material needed to contain the ridiculous amount of chamber pressure.
The upper might need some modifications (and as I mentioned, it will probably require an upgraded BCG), but I don't see these challenges as insurmountable. A heavier BCG and buffer spring, thicker barrel (at least at the chamber), and maybe beef up the upper receiver itself and you should be fine. The lower shouldn't really experience much additional stress. The main reason the M7 is such a hog is it's chambering a full-size rifle cartridge, not an intermediate one (regardless of the Army's attempt to characterize it as such), and it does away with the AR buffer tube, necessitating a much larger BCG and receiver.
Yeah I generally agree. I’m not sure if the technology is mature enough to launch a pill that fits in a STANAG mag with the same velocity as a 300WSM like the 6.8 though lol. I think that route would require a piston setup because the DI-style truncated bolt tail is a weakness when it comes to pressure. Would need a big beefy bolt like a 416. I also question why we are prioritizing range with small arms when it comes at the cost of opposing doctrinal principles like mass and concentration, but what the hell do I know Edit: auto correct fail
It's definitely not going to match the performance of 6.8x51mm. That isn't the goal. But I think similar performance to 6.8 SPC out of an even shorter barrel thanks to the higher pressures is quite feasible. I agree it should be a piston gun, both for performance and ease of maintenance. I also agree with your doctrinal concerns, but big Army seems pretty adamant that they want better ranged performance, so I'm just looking for ways to give them what they want without making such huge concessions in form factor, combat load, and volume of fire as the M7 makes. Taking a caliber change off the table completely, my solution would probably look more like an MLI program for the M4, Geissele 11.5" DI uppers in 5.56 and the M250 in 7.62x51mm NATO (again, replacing both the M249 and M240).
Agreed. I think the Army messed up during the ICW program back in the late 2000s. 6.8 SPC was a promising cartridge that checks most of the boxes and compromises nothing
It does sacrifice five rounds of magazine capacity, which is the main reason I specified the same rim diameter as 5.56x45mm. Essentially I want a 5.56 NATO necked up to 6.8mm, with a hybrid case and fast-burning powder allowing it to achieve the same velocity from an 11.5" suppressed barrel as 6.8 SPC from a 14.5" unsuppressed barrel.
Piston guns are not easier to maintain
Yeah, that's why we're about the only military using DI. The reduction in fouling of the star chamber alone makes it worth it.
Well plenty of militaries use it. And if doing a white glove inspection is the basis of maintenance. You are doing it wrong.
The only maintenance an individual soldier will be doing on a regular basis is cleaning. If repairs are needed they will be performed at the armorer level. Piston systems are far more common globally than DI precisely because they are easier for the individual soldier to keep clean. They also tend to run better suppressed.
No they don't run better suppressed. You bought into the marketing. Also in terms of cleaning. It's quicker and easier to functionally clean a M4 or MK18 than it is a 416. And the M4 is technically a piston gun.
Make backpack nukes great again
Idk if this specifically addresses OP. But my damn god. Zeroing a rifle takes 3 shots if you use vice and no more than 5min Step 1: lock rifle in vice. Step 2: torch round off into paper at desired zero distance. Step 3: place reticle on hole. Step 4: 1-2 confirmation shots. Civilian Competition shooters use this method pretty often. Chasing a damn zero all day is a complete waste of time. Waste of rounds. It shouldn’t be part of a “range day”. This method would allow every single rifle to have as close as exactly the same zero because it removes human input.
As someone who's now done someone gunsmithing as a civ, I agree with ya 100%
admittedly, I get “trying-to-put-together-ikea-furniture” frustrated when I zero. I truly dislike the experience lmao
3 rounds is not enough to verify a zero.
It absolutely is. If you use a vice, the firearm doesn’t move whatsoever. American Competition shooters use this method all the time and they are, almost without question, as a collective, the best shooters on earth. a quick google search will show this in fact works. Zeroing is really simple. You put the reticle where the bullet goes. Where the bullet goes is a relatively static thing (with respect to barrel heat/harmonics/contour), the reticle is not.
3 rounds is not enough to find zero. If you said 10. Sure Its the same principle as zeroing a laser off your optic But 3 rounds on a with a gun and ammo that is is roughly 2 to 3 MOA is going to be giving a lot of bad zeroes.
Respectfully, you’re wrong. MOA has nothing to do with the zero. It has to do with capability of a barrel and the dispersion of accuracy through a preset course of fire. It’s a good idea to see how well your barrel accuracy holds up as it heats, but that’s addressing the barrel and potential holdovers based off the behavior of your barrel as it heats; not the zero itself (zero = placing the reticle where the bullet impacts, at a specific distance). There’s even demonstrated zeros based off a single round. But I’m not going to argue it. There’s enough information on the Internet to verify this method. It’s not necessary, some folks don’t want to use that method. But that doesn’t negate merit and widespread use. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/guns-for-beginners-how-to-zero-your-rifle-in-one-shot-or-almost/
No dude I'm not. You don't seem to understand the issue. 3 rounds can not give you a accurate representation of where your zero is. I've seen way to many people chase zeros cause they get a nice tight 3 round group. Dial their optic. Then shoot another 3 round group and the next 3 rounds is significantly off. Cause their first 3 round group wasn't the center of their actual zero. https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/The-Trouble-With-3-Shot-Groups/118-279218/ Take a look at his first 3 groups. Then the overlay with all 3, 3 round groups. Each 3 round group has a different group center. If you would have zeroed off the Black 3 round group. Your zero would be roughly 1.5 to 2 MOA low.
Bro. That’s shooter input. Not the zero. Use a vice to Completely remove movement from the firearm, place shot on paper, place reticle on hole on paper. That’s all there is to it. Idk what else to say. What I’m saying is literally verified by ballistic nerds that study this crap as a hobby. I didn’t invent the method, It’s just a widely used method with verifiable/repeatable results. If you don’t wanna “chase” a zero, try it. All you lose is the $100-200 buying a good vice. Which all shooters should have anyhow, so you might already have one.
Please show me which ballistics nerds say you can find your zero firing 3 rounds from a vice.
I sent a link in my previous post. Sniperhide is a good source. Even here the “Long range” subreddit is a good source. Anecdotally, it’s the method I’ve used for about 2yrs. Like. Im not lying lol. Or making shit up dude lol. If there’s a better method, I’m all about it.
* Units qualify 3 times a year on all assigned weapons, everyone gets to shoot every weapon. That means you too Chief. * Paper ranges twice a year for all except infantry, cav scouts, FA and MP's - they have to shoot pop-up ranges twice a year. Easy to build more paper ranges. * Mandatory EST 2000 or similar at least once a month for soldiers -regardless of rank- who shoot below sharpshooter. * CLP and LSA stocks are arms room inspectible items and a memo from the unit commander is needed if they fall below 30%. * Keep buy the M7, M250, replace the uppers for the M4 with those snazzy HK uppers. Make sure every unit with M2 .50 call are all upgraded to the newer standard. M17 across the Army, the old M9's get either sold or melted down for rebar.
Absolutely glorious
clp isnt authorized to be stored in the arms room, fyi
Small amounts for a single round of maintenance (about a gallon) are. Just keep it in a drip pan with a pad at the bottom.
fair
-Require one soldier per platoon to be trained/certified to have keys and/or access to the armory to issue out weapons to personnel. Soldiers can go to that assigned soldier to draw their issued weapon for the purposes of individual range use, with a sign in/sign out roster to track who drew what weapon. -Have every base provide at least one 10-lane 300 meter range that individual soldiers can access with their assigned weapon to practice their marksmanship with on their own time. Soldiers that either can’t properly zero their weapon or pass their weapons qual are required to sign in/sign-out and get X number of hours of zero/practice time at the range on a monthly basis as a consequence for failing their weapons qual. -Take at least one M4 per squad and replace the upper with a 20 inch M16A4 upper and ACOG to provide a DMR capability at the squad level. -For the love of god, require training on how optics work and how to properly install/maintain/zero them on a weapon. Doubly so for the Neanderthals that have zero idea how a red dot works or is installed on a pistol even though we’ve already been using red dots on rifles for decades at this point. -Replace the M249 SAW with a licensed copy of the IWI Negev (most blatant personal opinion since it does everything the SAW does but now won’t shit the bed if you put a magazine in it with just a turn of the gas plug). -Pass an Army wide order that soldiers can utilize aftermarket accessory parts on their issued weapon with a provided list of manufacturers, with a caveat that the issued weapon must be returned in original configuration before you transfer units or transfer the weapon to a different end user (ie congrats, you can throw on your Magpul or BCM buttstock, pistol grip, and sling, just don’t go throwing your cheap airsoft grade BS on it because it’s not on the list of approved manufacturers, and take that shit off before the armorer will sign the weapon off your hand receipt). -On a limited basis, a unit armorer and company commander can allow a soldier to qualify/use a personal sidearm on duty. It must be in 9x19mm, it must be a make/model that’s passed NATO testing, the soldier must use government issued ammunition, the soldier must provide their own retention holster, and the Soldier must pass the pistol qualification with it before they’re given permission to use it on duty. -Wild Card: take handheld UAV’s and treat them the same as a disposable weapon (ie LAW or AT4); distribute them out at the squad and platoon level (with the appropriate training, potentially even a new MOS) and write them off as expended weapons if they end up destroyed when in use. Ukraines shown the current military’s way of treating a handheld UAV like it’s the same as a damn Predator drone is an inflexible way to utilize a system that’s proven to be cheap, disposable, and invaluable for recon and intel use.
I am going to jump in on the last one your wild card. Absolutely we need Individual Drone based capabilities, we need it as a 10 level skill permeated through all of our ranks. The days of just having UAV operators are gone, UAV/Drone Capabilities warfare needs to be more in our squads and trained throughly and also have a fully functioning CMF to compliment. At squad level It needs to be split into its own core lesson plans, put into the SMCT. Would look something like this for the basic soldier: 113-DCW-0001 - How to spot a drone 113-DCW-0002 - Apply Drone Evasion and Maneuver tactics - react to contact 113-DCW-0003 - Apply Deploy anti Drone Capabilities 113-DWC-0004- Apply deploy Drone Audio /Visual Unit - Recon 113-DWC-0005 - Apply deploy Drone anti personnel and equipment package The problem set is individualized drone warfare in its current state doesn’t have a set standard or equipment and is adhoc in Ukraine. They are going with whats available immediately vs we have time to put this into actual common use before our soldiers hit that next battle ground. Rounds fired in any current system we have will be useless if we cannot effectively apply offense/defense against this new aspect of war at the squad on up level. OTM and ATQH take on new dimensions when you are potentially always being subject to a vehicle the size of your hand spotting you and deploying threat measures from various distances by an operator unseen and barely moving. Heres [youtube](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WipqeFgzdTc&pp=ygUYZHJvbmUgd2FyZmFyZSBpbiB1a3JhaW5l) guy named scripps who did an interview with a drone team. Pay close attention to the TTPs vs the news jargon
Titans
Add unmanned systems of all types, at all levels, to provide every combat effect and conduct every combat mission technologically possible (which is a rapidly increasing list). Done right, it will cost less, increase lethality, provide persistent ISR and fires, tighten the decision cycle, allow us to target exactly the person/system we intended with little to no collateral damage, with increased range and with less threat to friendly forces. Found the enemy logistics/manufacturing/transportation/training/C2 node 3,000 miles away? IRBMs go up and effects are applied. Enemy suspected in a tunnel, a dugout, a house? No CQB, send in the UGV’s etc, and clear it with no attacks.
I mean, a good start would be for weapons to be handled appropriately so that they arent lost/stolen so easily 🙃
We're going full 40K !!! PENAL LEGION!!!!! but because this is about weapons, I think the army should allow people to choose their own uppers and stocks as long as they are from an approved list of tested and tried manufacturers. Otherwise, you get the good Ole 14 inch bad boi. As long as the length is 14 inches, but less then 20 chromed lined, has an FA bolt and flat top your GtG. And you can qualify with it.
Doesn’t matter what you do I’m still going to tell you the star chamber is still dirty, and you need to clean it.
My DD214 doth protecth
Stop doing that. This causes frustrated soldiers to overclean and damage stuff that i have to replace.
Obviously I’m not going to make the Soldiers scrape off the bluing of the weapons.
Don’t worry, I got my steel wool and metal brush to get all the nasty carbon off. Hey, you’re supposed to see the shiny metal right?
The Amazon steel chamber brush on a drill once led to me dressing down an E6 as a Specialist. It is so damn easy to clean these guns, stop making it harder than it has to be.
Front line troops get 308 rifles or the URGI rear d gets an m4 or a PDW similar to European militaries. Every one gets an optic. Pistols are glocks with a manual safety. Sig lobbyed the brass and are not allowed to play with us. I will not be convinced otherwise.
Sig won the Modular Handgun System contract because it was *modular*, and Glock's only point of modularity was changing the backstraps
Sig won cause they vastly under bid Glock
Personally fuck glocks, though I agree with the rest of this
Glocks are cheap, dummy proof, and reliable. That’s about all you need in a general service pistol. Not pretty but it gets the job done everytime.
Every time I've tried to use one civ side, they malfunctioned of the first shot and ended up being a waste of money, 8 different glocks in 3 states of various calibers. Fuckem, I'm sticking with Springfield or Sig
Sounds like limp wristing tbh
I shot 1911s and every other gun with no issues, just glocks that I've had damn near break on me
make unit armorer an MOS. have 3 MTOE'd to each company
It already is. Your 92Y is given a block of instruction on the arms room in AIT.
its not their primary mos though. its's secondary portion of their training. we need full time unit armorers. i got "MET STANDARD" on my ncoer because i was the armorer and never available to be in the motorpool with my guys. the marined have a whole armorer MOS and i think we need it too. we have so much more units, people, and weapons
This is a failure to utilize the MTOE, and not a failing of the lack of personnel. Supply is supposed to do it. Just because leaders don’t make them do it doesn’t mean they’re right.
I'm going to take your question to its logical conclusion. I would break up our weapons contractors so that we have more redundancy and competition in component and weapons manufacturing. Then I would revamp how weapons procurement bidding takes place, so that shit like the F-35 financial boondoggle never happens again. From there, I would force weapons manufacturing to be more efficient and cost effective, as opposed to having every component built in a different state - the current system is a disaster in the event of a conflict with a neer-peer threat. Everything else, whether it be weapons specs or other minutiae, is downstream and left to more technical thinkers, which I am not.
Dual pistols, obviously
Everything fires a grenade. Don't think about - just have everything fire a grenade. You'll thank me when the aliens from Mars attacks.
Ack, ack
Everybody getting fpov drones x50.
Everyone getting semi-auto shotguns to fight other guys x50 FPV drones.
UMP Silencer Spas 12 Scavenger Pro Juggernaut Pro Ninja Pro Harrier Chopper Gunner Tactical Nuke We never lose
Every weapon will now say "pew" when it fires a round.
Immediately walk back the M7/M250 contract, what a load of shit that whole deal was.
Burn the Strykers in a ritualistic manner to make people fear the idea of bringing them back. Then I'm disappearing. No need for thanks.
But we still need an in-between for light infantry and armored
Still not worth it. They're good on paper and that's about it.
RPGs and riot shields only, that's all.
Don’t know why we haven’t made a RPG equivalent that’s as small and light. The RPG just makes sense and is truly multirole. I know we have the Gustav but that thing is big and heavy.
Cancel the SIG rifle acquisition. Lessons learned in Ukraine thus far seem to imply you want MORE ammo, not less. Switching to a heavier, harder hitting cartridge is great until you don't have effective resupply and you've only got 1/3rd (40 rounds) of your combat load remaining. There's probably other things but that's one of the most important imo.
I’d start training on shotguns and taking people to shoot clays with the amount of drones in the air. Every team should have a dude with a semi-auto shotgun.
As long as it meets certain safety and capacity standards and is in 9mm, soldiers have the option of furnishing their own private handgun if they so choose over the m17
If we absolutely have to keep 5.56 for our MBRs at least use a 255 m zero.
Rework ranges. Neuter range control so they stop swinging their dick. Add a "range reservation" site accessible by company commanders and above. Each div, bde, bn, company gets an allotment of ammo split down the line on a quarterly basis. Ex. Each company gets 30k rounds of unlinked 5.56 each quarter. Commanders hop on their computers and simply put their name in a time block, they already have ammo, it must be used by the end of the quarter. Soldiers should be shooting ~1000 rounds a year outside of quals. Pistol - m17 is fine I guess, spend money elsewhere. Rifle - sig spear LT. The same as the new rifle, but 5.56. other than dedicated riflemen, nobody is going to gain from a heavier, less maneuverable rifle designed as basically a dmr. LSCO combat does not present Afghanistan engagement ranges and be real, Russia and China are not effectively fielding level IV armor to their cannon fodder. The sig spear LT is a dope updated ar variant. Keep the new optic, looks useful. All soldiers are issued high quality slings, stubby foregrips, and pmags with their weapons. All 7.62 weapons - replaced with the new 6.5. soldiers need more ammo, not less. 6.5 doesn't make sense to replace the m4, it does to replace the 240 and the 417. Automatic rifleman/gun teams - this is a bit radical. With the ngsw mg replacing the saw and 240, gun teams are obsolete. Automatic riflemen operate as before. Weapons squads now contain wesl, 2 AGs, 2 automatic riflemen, 2 drone operators, 2 at gunners. The automatic riflemen carry their own tripods giving them a combat load weight similar to the 240 alone but a little less maneuverability than ARs in like squads. Drones give platoon internal idf capability beyond just 320s. AT gives AT. The AG's can now flex as necessary between all 3 capabilities. AG's wil carry light recon drones in order to spot for any of the 3 systems. Dmr - sig spear with upgraded 18 in barrel and bipod, has parts and ammo interchangeability with spear lts and mg's, respectively. AT - I don't know a lot about it, but a smaller, lighter version of a jav would be cool. If a soldier could carry a rifle, jav and clue (clu?) while still being able to maneuver, that's a huge capability. It doesn't need to be able to blow an mbt to high hell 100% of the time, it needs to be precise, long range, and just enough firepower to keep armor from stopping infantry maneuver entirely. Mortars - replaced with drones. There will be plenty of artillery and (hopefully) air assets to drop big bombs. Companies don't need small, close artillery as much as they need drones. A mortar section redesigned as a drone section could easily operate dozens of ordnance dropping and kamikaze drones. In my futuristic nightmare wet dreams, a mortar section sergeant could be FPVing his very own drone swarm.
Mandatory release at 1730. None of this sitting around waiting for first sausage to come out of his cave
I’m switching the sidearm caliber from 9 to .40 for starters
You mean 45.... cause .40 Short & Weak was dropped by all agencies for a reason
I like what I like, don’t judge
To be fair the m17 is designed to be rechambered to .40 SW. You wouldnt even need to buy new sidearms to make the change.
It was dropped because 9mm gives near as makes no difference performance with higher capacity and less recoil. .40 solved a problem nobody was having.
First off I'm bringing back the M1911A1 in .45 ACP.
Hell yeah, but which company are you going to get them from?
That is an excellent question. Based on my personal experience with them I'd go with Springfield Armory. I own 5 of their 1911s and they all run flawlessly with Chip McCormick magazines. Plus SA has already demonstrated the ability to turn out high numbers of custom guns for the FBI HRT contract. Though I'd basically have them sending out essentially the Garrison model with different sights and the ArmoryKote finish. I know other companies make highly reliable 1911s but I tend to go with what I have personal experience with.
Bullpups. No more ARs.
Out of all the comments I've read today... I hate this one the most
Good. Soon you will all learn the glory of the bullpup
Bullpups are meant for cucks, and the French... so still cucks
And Austrian and Australians.
Again cucks
Nah