He's exactly correct.

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.

> 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The whole KD range routine is outdated anyway, no matter how much nostalgia we may have for the RSOs' funny hats and the "youmayfirewhenyourTAAAAAAAAARGETappears" spiel delivered over the inevitably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.

The KD course is not outdated. I was one of those NCOs with the pith helmet for 18 months. Not only the KD course, but also the pistol course. I was also chosen to teach the Air Force and Army different skills on their own weapons because I was very good at what I did. I actually went to school for this as a secondary MOS. I can tell for a fact very few can adjust their dopes quickly when they lose fine motor skills in the chaos of battle or training. The Army regulars were shocked at the level we went to. The Rangers and Air Force PJs we worked with were always up at the top with their skills by dint of their job requirements. Even the famous Army AMU gives kudos to the Marines for the KD course. I've worked with several of them in exchange programs. The Army is largely an occupational force, while the Marines are an expeditionary force. Short of the Rangers/SF types, the missions are almost always different and the marksmanship skills are different, although they should be the same. The Marines value high levels of marksmanship more than the other services. It's not always about hop and pop. This is why the Corps copied the Russian doctrine of a DM in all platoons. In some Russian platoons, there is a DM in every squad, which is a fantastic idea. The little 5.56 is largely a poodle shooter unless you're within 100M. .30 any day, every day.

> The KD course is not outdated. I was one of those NCOs with the pith helmet for 18 months. Not only the KD course, but also the pistol course.

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?

I assure you, my feelings are well intact. Everyone I worked with hated the 5.56. And yes, I've deployed, and to some odd places. Not only did our unit do the sandpit, but a few us, myself included, assisted the Philippine Marines with patrols in various locales in the PI.

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.

The rounds used today are not the rounds that were issued in Vietnam with the first M16s.

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.

5.56 is also by far the best squad level belt fed weapon round. The precision of fires you can achieve at around 300-400m with a SAW by observing the beaten zone is pretty awesome, and that's largely a function of the low recoil of the 5.56 round. Furthermore, 1000 rounds of SAW ammo weighs like 30lbs less than 1000 rounds of 240 ammo. When it's 120 degrees out, that's non-trivial.

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....

I know Army SF Snipers who shoot customized 5.56 rifles, obviously using heavier rounds and such.

It's a great round -- I love 5.56.

Yeah there's a 75-grain 5.56 round tuned specifically for the HK416 that SOCOM is currently playing around with. Sweet setup. Don't know how widely it's fielded though.

While the 5.56 does improve with time and is lighter, the 6MM or .30 is still better IMHO. Were I given a choice between carrying an extra few pounds and having better terminal ballistics, I'll take that.

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.

The SAW is not for suppression. It, indirect fires, and hand grenades are for killing. Rifles are for suppression; they're the "jab". Belt fed weapons and shrapnel are the "right cross" and "hooks". You would know this if your knowledge on the topic came from operational experience vs. magazines. USMC doctrine in this regard hasn't changed since at least Vietnam.

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.

The average infantry loadout does not include a handgun.

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.

USMC, 86-94. As an NCO, I was issued a handgun because my MOS called for it. The Corps has different doctrine than the Army. Issuing a handgun makes plenty of sense in certain environments. I did lots of "jungle time", as it were, so our mission was different. Marines do many different things than the Army. Loads of patrols for drug interdiction, for example. Never saw American soldiers on these. Ditto patrolling in PI for insurgents. Everyone armed to the teeth for these. When you're in Thailand or the PI and you're miles from re-supply and helos cannot see you for the canopy, you are humping tons of crap that you normally wouldn't, although my base loadout always included a handgun, no matter the environment. Also please remember that back when I was in, and even now, the Corps gets the crappy end of the stick where gear is concerned. Most of our stuff was Army hand-me-downs. The Corps uses Blue, not Green dollars. All of our vehicles were prior Navy or Army. Quite a few of our weapons were also. They were all retrofitted with new parts (spring kits, etc.), but we had largely older gear. We were still using the AN/PRC-77 radios back then, which is a Vietnam-era radio kit.

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.

Ok, so you have no relevant modern experience to draw from. 94 was a generation and four wars ago.

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.

I'm well aware of the advances. However, I can tell you that 6mm or .30 trumps 5.56 every single time w/o exception and the military is actually looking to replace the 5.56 with a 6mm cartridge. 5.56 is a weak performer. There are myriad reports of troops having to double/triple tap enemy combatants to get them down. This is a waste of ammo and saps faith in their own gear. 6mm or.30 doesn't tend to have this issue. The energy dump is much, much more. A .243 or 6.5 has more energy at 500 than a 5.56 does at 100 and with a barely-noticeable recoil difference, especially in a gas-operated platform.

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...

You're using so much of the silly non-shooter/non-military buzzwords that I'm pretty sure you've never carried a weapon or spent a single day on active duty.

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.

Ya dude the fetishization of Russians and French Foreign Legion is a dead giveaway. Soldier of Fortune lifetime subscriber.

shooting on a pop up range is cool, but without the basic marksmanship fundamentals it's missing something.

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.

First off, have you served? In the USMC? If not, you don't get an opinion. If you have, then your opinion is just that. I personally have had tech items fail where iron sights were better. If Marines get used to the ACOG and never use the iron sights, this is a massive problem. You fall to your lowest level of training. Train like you fight, yes, but learn to master both all the time. If the ACOG fails, you should be able to detach and change your dope in less than 10 seconds. If not, you need more training.

> First off, have you served? In the USMC? If not, you don't get an opinion.

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.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. I know weapon systems like my own hand. If you don't, then everything you offer is simply an opinion, not a fact.

And, in my OPINION, civilian control of the military is one of the reasons we haven't won a war since WWII.

> 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?