Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Cappy Army" channel.

@orlock20 There's nothing you can do to an M1 Garand or M14 to make it heavier than an XM7, unless you put an old PVS-2 on the M-14. That's how bad the XM7 weight is. My heavy Bartlein-barreled .260 Rem AR-10 w/ 4-24x56 34mm scope and bipod is lighter than XM7, and it's a heavy witch.
42
They made an even heavier M14 that's less reliable than the Colt 602 AR-15 problem rifle in early days of Vietnam, that fires a $13 round. Progress
27
@boygonewhoopdataZZ Anyone who starts bringing up doctrine needs to understand that the enemy reads all that, either by OSINT or observation of your TTPs, and quickly works around it as a matter of life and death. NGSW is fundamentally-flawed in concept and execution at every step, other than the color of the finish.
22
Saint John used to be a Ranger, but Ranger Regiment looked at the XM7 and said, "Get that pile of trash out of here."
15
@dustindownard12809 All his points mimic what hundreds of experienced Infantry and SOF NCOs have been saying all along.
6
@Nathan-jh1ho Insider source told me they've seen rifling shot out at 800rds in compressed schedules.
5
@Whiskey11Gaming Precious few soldiers and Marines carried both the M14 and M16 in their enlistments because the M14 was only there in the early days in 1965-1967 for mass issue, procurement having ended in 1964. By 1968, hardly any units had M14s anymore. So to just get a sample of soldiers and Marines who were issued both, you would need to find a very limited group of guys who served in a tiny window in the war. It isn’t like a unit kept all their old weapons and gave guys a choice. An armorer’s job is hard enough keeping up on the spread of M60s, rifles, pistols, grenade launchers, mortars, and .50 cals. It would really suck trying to maintain and field M14s plus M16s with all their related BII, support tools, PMCS, and processes. As to who would choose what, every single Recon and Special Operations unit loved the AR-15 and XM177E2. They were the early adopters, quickly ditching the M14. For Infantry units, the M14 was totally inappropriate for SEA for all the reasons the XM7 is inappropriate today. Weight, bulk, limited round count, and recoil. There are a lot of guys who read gun rags and ranted for decades about how they preferred the M14 over the M16, but almost none of them were even in Vietnam or the Infantry, and were repeating some crap they heard.
4
@chris-zt7eo XM7 with suppressor and no sights at all is heavier than an M14. You really want the suppressor on a 77ksi chamber pressured 270-08 with a 13" barrel. We had M21s in my first 2 Recon Platoons, although we rarely used them. M24s were the main SWSs we used in each Sniper Squad. M21 is more accurate than the XM7, so your hit probability is better with it. Our M21s couldn't have been over 13lbs with ART-II or M3A. Like the XM157, our ART-IIs were all broken before we even joined the Army. ART-II is way less complicated than XM157. If they want to keep this cartridge for some reason, just issue a different upper or barrel for M110s for DMs. That would fix the reliability and accuracy issues. It's simply not remotely-appropriate for issue to Infantry and dismounted combat arms soldiers en mass.
4
@stupidburp I prefer the feel of triangual HGs as well, and they keep the rifle upright on a sandbag. A2 were stronger though and interchangeable.
4
@Magikarp-4ever Straight Jacket is marketing, not reality. Even if it worked, it would be prohibitively expensive for small arms.
4
@ApeRiderr M16 never went through weight problems. It was lightweight from the start, more accurate than M14s, soldier's load was minimally affected by ammunition weight compared to any other service rifle in history.
4
@williamguillIII That likely indicates there was a leadership problem and the Chain of Command didn’t want the sensing session to universally reflect that senior leadership was effing up. I’ve been through many sensing sessions and saw it temporarily crush our Bn Commander, who was an incompetent piece of trash who should have never been allowed near any soldiers outside of a janitorial capacity. He later filed an EO complaint agains the Division Commander, who correctly assessed him and had him branch-reassigned away from Infantry. He was able to weasel his way back into Infantry, and went on to command a Brigade where he bragged about losing over 47 soldiers in OIF. His dad was a retired senior NCO as well, so it was all on him the way he turned out. His wife was really squared away, very polite and courteous to others. I’m not sure what went wrong.
3
@chris-zt7eo XM7 with suppressor & no sights is 9.8lbs empty. That's the baseline to have comparable muzzle exit pressure with an M14 though. We never had cans for them, but my brother did on his Smith Enterprises upgraded M14 in Ramadi. Once you configure the XM7, it goes from a non-starter to a dead-on-arrival service weapon. Nothing can be done to substantively-reduce the weight either.
3
@Grassroots_Hegemon Now imagine carrying a 14lb log in your arms basically, then once you get to your objective, having to do constant read-ups with it. XM8 is a non-starter in this regard.
3
What I’ve come to understand with the P320 is that it isn’t about the P320, it’s about something that has really changed for the worse within SIG. I mean SIG has a reputation of being one of the top quality, reliable, durable, accurate, dependable firearms manufacturers from the P220-P229 and SIG550 series. This P320 and XM7 don’t even remotely relate to that legacy, quote the opposite really.
3
@sullathehutt7720 Gunners get over by nature of how Gun Teams are set up. I was in Weapons Squad several different times throughout my career, having done every duty position up through Wpns Sqd Leader. Started off with M60s and was there for transition to M240 for the latter half of my time in. It really sucked when we had 2-man gun teams and you have an AG/AB. Combine that with this XM7 and you have a recipe for failure. Even worse for mortars.
3
@Whiskey11Gaming For the post-War European small arms development, they all saw firsthand the benefit of an intermediate cartridge, getting as far away from a battle rifle cartridge as possible, while trying to retain as much energy on-TGT as possible, and increasing the soldier’s round count. .280 British was a great example of that, and would have been an interesting choice for the T44, FAL, and AR-10, instead of another full-power 7.62 cartridge like we did adopt.
2
@rethguals I looked at the Army PT Test “standards” recently and was almost shocked at how low they are compared to what we had in the 1990s-2000s. They even lowered them while I was in, supposedly because fat officers at the Pentagon couldn’t pass the APFT, so they graduated it based on age to make it easier for entry-level 17-21yr-olds, then gradually got a little harder, then got easier for the fat senior garritroopers. Now the max % in the events resemble the minimum standards of my era, I kid you not. It was embarrassing.
2
@gunguru7020 A loaded M4A1 Block II SOPMOD with PEQ-15, TA31 ACOG, RMR, weighs 9.4lb unloaded/10lbs loaded with Surefire 30rd mag. Empty, sightless XM7 with Suppressor weighs 9.8lbs. Configured with XM157, BUIS, Surefire, and sling weighs 14lbs. Basic load weighs a lot more, takes up more space, for way less round count, meaning combat endurance with ability to fire on the enemy is limited to much less time, meaning emergency resupply will be a constant thing. It’s a non-starter for anyone with a GT Score over 100.
2
@rethguals To max the APFT when I first was in, it was: 92 Sit-ups in 2 min 82 Push-ups in 2 min 11:54 of faster on 2-mile run I always strived and operated on those standards even when they dropped them to 1200 something for the 2-miler, and lower reps for PU and SU.
2
@gunguru7020 The suppressor is mandated to be attached to prevent hearing loss and as part of signature reduction in a world of thermal and IR sensors. The XM157 is central to the system because it "reduced weight" by integrating a LRF, LAM, Ballistic Computer, and LPVO. If we go backwards with more federated systems and their separate batteries, the system weight increases and adds even more frontal weight to an already front-heavy POS. The whole design is flawed due to a cartridge that's too large. There is no way around that fact.
2
@ApeRiderr But we would never use XM250 in the roles we use the 240, since there is no quick barrel change option, and you can't sustain fire with it. A better option to replace the 240 would be an LMG that fires an intermediate cartridge with less recoil, but similar downrange performance. Think 6.5 Grendel in a lighter, more compact LMG with more round count, very easy 1st-burst connect and ease of self-spotting.
2
@stupidburp The older ERDL worked really well, better than woodland in woodland, and not bad in the desert. Army “fixed" that really quick. Anything having to do with individual soldier weapons and equipment, the Army sure manages to eff it up.
1
@gunguru7020 You can even go with less chamber pressure and generate 3400fps muzzle velocity from 12” barrel 6.5 Grendel with a lighter bullet. We know even the 6.8x51 doesn’t penetrate Level IV at 100m, but does only at close range, so the baseline expectation of it to penetrate hard armor at 600m has not been met and was exempted year ago. That was the basis for most of the ballistic requirements of the program, which then set the magazine, rifle, and LMG weights and configurations. The whole program is literally flawed because the people who specified and are running are incompetent. This is no surprise, because big Army has not been able to solicit, select, develop, or manage a successful rifle program since the M1 Garand. M1 Garand “Great success” M14 Massive failure SPIW Massive failure ACR Failed OICW Failed ISCR Failed (7.62 NATO redux battle rifle) NGSW Colossal failure across the board Now look at USAF rifle history: Used what the Army did, namely M1 & M2 Carbines for Security Police in the 1950s AR-15 adoption driven by Curtis Le May for SPs after US Army Ordnance declared it wholly unfit for US service rifle use Special Forces, Airborne, Airmobile, and Commonwealth Special Forces Units quickly adopted it in the early-mid 1960s (UK SAS, Canadanion Recce/SOF, Australian SAS, New Zealand SAS) Then look at JSOC history: XM177E2s Colt 653s M16A1/M203s from 1977-1985 Colt 723s from 1984 to 1993, introduction of Aimpoints and Surefires, Ops Inc Suppressors, SR-25s M4A1 from 1994-2004, more LPVOs, newer LAMs, better lights, slings, suppressors, newer SR-25s, rails, FF RAS, MRE, better sniper optics, Thermals Hk 416s from 2005, more optics, better LPVOs, smaller/higher output WPLs, newer suppressors, SR-25 ECC, better optics KAC AMG belt-fed constant-recoil LMGs 6mm ARC DMRs with newer optics and accessories US Army has proven they can’t define, select, manage, or develop appropriate weapons systems even for its own infantry, combat support, and support troops, even with the biggest Army budget in the world, with help from the other services. Therefore, small arms development for individual service weapons like rifles, carbines, and pistols should not be driven by the US Army anymore. They’ve had over a century to get it right with all the resources one could imagine, and still failed.
1
@NareshSinghOctagon There were 2 production rifles and an upper receiver interim upgrade before the AR-15/M16 was dialed-in: Colt 601 Green Rifles, which were fine firing the original stick powder ammunition. SF and ARVN Rangers loved these. Colt 602 Black Rifles. These had major failures in maintaining dimensional specs in chambers, so when they were fed the ball propellant ammunition (developed without involvement of Stoner and the AR-15 design team from ArmaLite), they suffered serious malfunctions like case head separations, excessive cyclic rates causing FTFeed, and corroded quickly due to lack of cleaning supplies. Army and USMC tried to band-aid the 602 with uppers that had forward assist on them, which didn’t really help. That was XM16E1. It wasn’t until the feedback from all the failures of 602s and XM16E1s came in that the Army began a program to correct the weapon. Coincidentally, this aligned with the Ichord Subcommittee hearings and the Colt 603 (M16A1) was on its way to being specified, type-classified, and mass-produced. M16A1 was and still is a very reliable weapon that suffers none of the silliness that happened with the original rifles. The core of the M16A1 with its BCG, recoil spring, and buffer were duplicated in the M16A2.
1
@rethguals We said the same thing, but it was a baseline at least to measure different areas of functional fitness. Push-ups help with being able to get out of the prone and IMT. The run was good for cardio. The sit-ups were injurious to your back if you did them fast enough to knock-out 92 in 2 minutes. In Infantry, we also did pull-ups, CWST, and 12-mile ruck marches quite often, so there was the APFT and then the practical things we did. Donning rucks in Weapons Squad, Mortars, RTOs, and anyone who had an especially-heavy ruck had a dead-lift type practical demand. I felt there should be a Combat Physical Fitness test with LCE, Helmet, weapon, with sprints, obstacles, dummy drags, and fireman carries. We did a lot of that stuff though just as part of unit culture and training, including no-warning stress fires along the way during surprise 12-mile road marches.
1
@rethguals I was in 7 different units ranging from Light Infantry (Air Assault) to Airborne Infantry and Long Range Surveillance. I noticed that our weekly PT schedules were very similar between the Light and Airborne units. Monday was a 3-mile fast-paced run followed by upper body, tons of push-ups. Tuesday would be 5 mile run followed by lower body and pull-ups. Wednesday would be sprints, followed by dips/upper body. Thursday was always Road March day followed by combatives and rig-ex in Airborne units. Friday was long run day for endurance, often 6-8mi run, one time 10 miler surprise. In Recon Platoons, we did PT 2x/day if we were in garrison, so the PT standards were much higher and enforced. You had to have 290 and above and 290 was considered a dirtbag performance to shame you. They really expected 300+ extended scale. In the field, we rucked everywhere if there wasn’t trans coordinated for trucks, so we often rucked 20km/12mi per day just in mostly admin modes to get from one range to another, or to relocate for the next iteration of training. In Recon units, we rucked a lot farther and carried everything to sustain ourselves, sometimes augmented with buried caches. I enjoyed that environment really, as we were always moving and being outdoors. The thought of sitting at a desk was just not compatible with my physique and physiology at the time. The only instances where I would do so was to borrow the PL’s desk for typing up awards for my soldiers.
1
Remember when Congress investigated retired General Mattis for being on the board of that scam medical diagnostics company, or retired General Lloyd Austin for being on the board of Raytheon?
1
M16A1 was a direct product improvement of Soldiers & Marines, as well as reiterating recommendations from Stoner. Chrome chamber & bore, gas port dim change, and heavy buffer fixed it, along with adherence to chamber dimension standards. M16A1s run like raped apes as a result. Used them extensively in my first unit before we switched to A2s.
1
@Texas240 You know if you chamber a Mk18 in 6.5 Grendel, it does CQB and intermediate range really well. Round count per weight will be less than 5.56, but not as bad as 7.62 NATO or 6.8x51. It has amazing armor defeat with lighter projectiles as well.
1
@Texas240 Agreed except for Comanche. That was an awesome helicopter that would have been an excellent replacement for the OH-58D, and could have also performed a lot of what the Apache does. Army Aviation didn’t want to decide between upgrades for AH-64 and UH-60 fleet and acquisition for RAH-66, but I would argue RAH-66 performing light armored reconnaissance in advance would have bright more pros than cons. We ended up without a light observation helo because they got rid of OH-58D after cancelling RAH-66. I would happily take every dime wasted on NGSW and put it towards RAH-66, or even better, give to the USAF so they can buy more F-35s, missiles, JDAMs, SDBs, etc. NGSW has been an absolute total waste of time, money, and RDT&E resources. I also question the effects of traitors in our upper echelons of acquisition who want to sabotage promising programs, while promoting wasteful and limited-use programs (NGSW, MRAP, conventional forces O&M costs for mass deployments to OEF and OIF, America’s Army video game).
1
@gunguru7020 A high performance intermediate cartridge to replace 7.62 NATO, which will also reduce shipping bulk and weight (this is where the real money is in the budget, costing billions just Army internal). We could keep 5.56 for the low-end PDW and for most combat arms duty positions, and equip anyone who used to employ a 7.62 NATO weapon with an efficient intermediate cartridge. M4 program just needs to adopt the SOPMOD-style Block upgrade approach rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, as you can’t really get a simpler design with less moving parts. Anodize the receivers FDE and make little improvements here and there. The Surefire/Magpul ICAR solves the mechanical side of frame and magazine for the new intermediate cartridge. Apply cartridge and propellant design improvements to 5.56 or make an even smaller cartridge with equal or better performance than 5.56 for most dismounts, combat support, and support personnel in a much smaller overall form even than the M4. Just for reference on the Intermediate cartridge side, a 12” 6.5 Grendel will spit a new EPR projectile out at 3400fps, without exceeding 52,000psi chamber pressure. 6.5 Grendel and 6mm have decades of developmental history already behind them, so we aren’t re-inventing the wheel there either, and we haven’t even tried pushing them with the new case technology. The hybrid cases are failing though, so single piece cases continue to be a proven solution that can either be legacy brass, and/or NAS. This solution set reduces the overall soldier’s and unit weight burden, while increasing the round count, increasing hit probability, increasing lethality, and increasing survivability. NGSW does all of those metrics wrong.
1
@gunguru7020 No, we already have 7.62 weapons down to the Platoon and Squad levels. I was an 11B, Scout Observer, Sniper, Recon ATL, Weapons Squad Leader, did all the duty positions in the line and Recon throughout my career, so I have a very intimate understanding of how the MTO&E actually works, what modern threats actually are from strategic down to tactical levels, and am a mega-geek gun guy with decades of experience in internal, external, and terminal ballistics research and application. We can increase the performance we already have, while reducing the overall weight of weapons and ammunition, to increase lethality and survivability. NGSW can’t do any of that and is a flawed concept from the start, like literally every single Big Army weapons program since the M14. Remember, this is an organization that can’t solicit, oversee development of, and field a successful service rifle since the 1950s when they went to replace the M1 Garand. The USAF had to drive the successful replacement inadvertently after Army Ordnance declared the AR-15 totally unsuitable for Infantry use.
1
That would make a great video.
1