The vast majority are techs and support troops.
The USMC has the most strenuous small arms requirements outside of actual special forces. It starts in boot camp and you must qualify every year until reaching E-8 or 0-5, respectively. The Corps is HUGE on marksmanship, and Marines are expected to hit targets out to 500M with iron sights, although these days, the kids get ACOGS, which I didn't have. Pistol out to 25M. Your promotion, in part, depends on how well you do. No one wants to go unq (unqualified) or not much better, wear the lowest level, which is Marksman (referred to as Pizza Box) due to the shape of the medal one must wear on their uniform.
Maybe put down the POG Kool-Ade and take a deep breath?
> although these days, the kids get ACOGS, which I didn't have
If you were the Commandant would you change this? Everyone has an ACOG on their weapon in the fleet; doesn't it make sense to train like you fight?
The ACOG vs iron sight thing has been a discussion for a long time. Basic marksmanship is better taught with iron sights, scopes are awesome for real use.
Do we care about achieving some kind of platonic ideal of proper marksmanship instruction, or do we care about familiarizing Marines with the weapons system configuration they are going to actually use if they one day have the privilege of launching rounds down a two-way range?
To be clear these are not mutually exclusive -- you still learn marksmanship when you qual with an ACOG, despite the protestations of Old Corps internet hardos -- but the latter should still be the priority.
The whole KD range routine is outdated anyway, no matter how much nostalgia we may have for the RSOs' funny hats and the "youmayfirewhenyourTAAAAAAAAARGETappears" spiel delivered over the inevitably shitty loudspeaker.
Sorry for hurting your feelings with my last post.
> The little 5.56 is largely a poodle shooter unless you're within 100M. .30 any day, every day.
Served me just fine in OIF. You ever deploy or are you getting your info from Soldier of Fortune?
Try an M-14 out for size or even an AR-10. World of difference. The power factor between the two calibers is simply apples and oranges.
Mk262 is quite effective and 5.56 is used by many militaries including the US.
"power factor"(that's actually a gun game term as I recall, I've never heard a SEAL/Ranger/Marine or infantryman use it) has nothing to do with terminal ballistics, weight of ammunition an infantryman has to carry, or performance of the weapons.
The AR-10 is notoriously finnicky and there is zero logistics train to support it anywhere in the world as it's not an issue weapon anywhere in the world, the M14 platform is far heavier than the M4 and has a variety of problems that were solved by the M16/M4, etc. etc. etc.
And despite what Old Corps gun nuts might tell you, there is plenty of "power factor" (LOL) in the 5.56 round. It gets the job done....
It's a great round -- I love 5.56.
Being that the average Infantry loadout is still 6 30-round magazines and a pistol with 3 15-round magazines, I'll take the heavier 6MM or .30 since the weight difference is not that great.
The M-249 SAW is a fine weapon and I've used them several times. They are good for what they are designed for, which is laying down suppressive fire for a squad. I still agree with the Russian doctrine of one DM per squad. If every squad had long(er) range capability, this would go a long way to helping squads not have to call in LR support or use the SAW so much.
You're obviously an intelligent man, and I agree with you on some points, but you also have to remember that the Marines and Army do things differently. The tactics and weapons doctrines are much different. The Army does this better in some instances. I admire the FFL and how they do squad and platoon tactics. Those guys are extremely well trained, often better than us, and they don't tend to wait around for permission when the SHTF, something that has gotten many a soldier and Marine killed. Say what you want about the French or Russians, but they give their platoons much more leeway in combat ops. Americans, since Vietnam, need to have almost express permission to engage unless directly fired upon.
Having said all of this, I'm not a war planner or an expert, just one man's experience and observations. We (Americans) can and should learn from other forces. They often do things better. For example, we send the 82nd to French Guiana for jungle warfare. We send troops (A & M) to Israel to learn CQC. The Philippine Marines are likewise excellent jungle fighters.
Please, stop pretending to be combat savvy because you got to hang out with the FilMars in the late 80's / early 90's. No shame in that, but please stop trying to BS everyone with the tough talk. HN is better than this.
> If every squad had long(er) range capability, this would go a long way to helping squads not have to call in LR support or use the SAW so much.
Are you arguing that >5.56mm precision rifle fires are fungible with belt fed weapons? That having more of the former available means less need for the latter? Seriously?
One concept that appears not to register with you is the USMC's ability and tendency to task organize and adapt in forward deployed environments. DMRs were de facto standard 1 per squad in AFG post around 2010 but were rarely if ever used in OIF (not including the occasional addition of an actual STA team to patrols). These decisions were and are normally made at the company level by young Marines in the field, not by gun nut keyboard warriors on a couch back home.
6mm and 30 are "better" if you don't have to carry it -- you're also forgetting the weapon is much heavier. For the vast majority of infantry encounters, it adds zero capability to the fight.
I'm curious as to when you were in the military, and what military you were in.
Editing to answer forgotten point: The new 6MM AR-pattern rifles weigh no more than their 5.56 counterparts empty, and very little difference loaded. The size and weight of the ammo is likewise negligible. These are being tested by the US at the moment in certain theaters and are well liked. They are being considered as DM rifles, which makes perfect sense. The US is taking a page out of Russia's book to have a DM per squad. This should have been done ages ago. For little weight gain, you add serious capability. The 6MM is no slouch, and has the best ballistic coefficient of any round in the inventory. The facts are out there to read. It's all very interesting.
I'm well aware of the USMC issues and funding.
Yes, the 6mm rifles are the same pattern, I should have clarified that I was talking about M14s in that comment, the difference is that NATO 5.56 is logistically supported world-wide by both us and our NATO allies. Realistically there are only two cartridges for infantry use worldwide -- 5.56 and 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has many issues that make it unsuitable for our uses, and 5.56 is the cartridge like it or not. A huge amount of R&D has taken place in the 5.56 world since 94, and the MK262 and others address all of the issues you've raised with it except for penetration of heavy cover, which is not generally relevant.
The US has used DMs for decades, using M14s or even other weapons. Replacing a DM weapon with another weapon is not what you have been arguing for, and is not relevant to the discussion of general purpose infantry weapon issue, which will essentially always be 5.56 until there is some impetus for all of NATO to change. Given the current state of that world, that's not likely to ever happen.
The M-14 is on the way out as a DM rifle anyway in favor of newer platforms like the HK417 or FN MK20. We can disagree all day long, but ballistics don't lie. The 5.56 is barely an intermediate round. It's still a .22 caliber round with all the inherent faults. The Corps referred to it as a "poodle shooter" when I served. It wasn't well liked. Ditto the myriads of soldiers I know who share a disdain for it.
I find it interesting that of all the people I know who are civilian shooters who were in the military in combat MOSs and who use an MSR of some type, none are in 5.56. They are either in .243, 6.5. or 7.62. You can guess why. They don't trust the 5.56 round other than for nuisance animals like coyotes. I've seen coyotes take 5.56 rounds center mass behind either leg and limp off to die in the bush. Never seen or had this happen to me or guys I hunt with using a .243, 6.5, or 7.62. They are DRT. And we don't hunt with FMJ.
If a superior (than issue) round being used on coyotes is suspect on occasion, you can imagine the troops who actually need decent rounds are hungry for something that actually performs as it should. 5.56 has been shown to be weak and ineffective except in a crew-served hail of rounds scenario or extremely close in. 6mm/.30 allows troops to keep the enemy further out there while still taking them down.
Military is working to get off the 5.56... https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-ar...
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-army...
I'm done with this discussion, as almost everything you're posting is just made up absurdity at this point.
5.56 has been used to great effect since the Vietnam war. It's still in use by the entire NATO alliance and will likely be the cartridge of choice there for the next forty years as well.
It's not a "platonic ideal", basic marksmanship is the foundation of all shooting. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be on a pop up range or any other.
I'm not claiming that shooting with an acog is bad, and they're used plenty in training -- but an acog is a crutch if you don't know how to shoot. Anybody can shoot well with a scope, it takes real work to get hits at 500 yards with iron sights. Your fundamentals must be perfect, and that's the standard the USMC has always held.
This is the essence of veteran entitlement that I absolutely loathe. Non-veterans absolutely get to have an opinion about all things military, and they should, given civilian control of DoD. I'm embarrassed by fellow vets like you, USMC or not, who try to lord the fact that they served over others who want to contribute to military-related discussions.
And, in my OPINION, civilian control of the military is one of the reasons we haven't won a war since WWII.
So....you're saying that we should be ruled by a military junta?
You're aware that civilians have controlled the US military for as long as the US has been an independent country, right?
I served 8 years in the USMC and was in a combat MOS. I doubt there was a weapon in the inventory we didn't touch on a somewhat regular basis (individual and crew served). In my units, our commanders were positively insistent we learned not only our own weapon systems, but also those of potential enemies. To that effect, there were a number of captured AK-47s, AK-74s, RPKs, Makarov, Tokarev, Mosin-Nagant, you name it in our unit armory. We learned them all (and cleaned them all). We also learned the weapons systems of our allies, like the British, French, and Israelis when we had military exchange programs, which are tons of fun.
Unless you are in a combat MOS, you are pretty safe being in the rear with the gear, as it were.