So I reached out to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, the author of the so-called "Infantry Half Klik," who's doing the good work in Afghanistan right now and he wrote me back with some updates to his thinking on the gear and tactics mismatch for Soldiers in Afghanistan.
My colleague Greg Grant at Defense Tech will likely ponder other aspects of Ehrhart's note to us, but I thought I'd share with you some of his updated thoughts. Keep in mind that Ehrhart did three years in the Reserve as an 11B before graduating from Penn State as an infantry officer. He's done one tour in Iraq during the invasion with the 101st and was in the 3 shop at NTC for a hitch.
In regards to developments since my paper has been published, there are several areas I would explore more. The new MK318 round seems to offer better performance and extended lethality range for the M4/M16.It bears more study, but based on [ballistics expert] Gary Roberts feedback and his recommendation, if I could get my hands on it, it is what I would be carrying right now. I would like to see more study of the 6.5 Grendel because it is certainly more effective beyond 400m than 6.8.
There's been a lot of buzz around the Mk318 or "Special Operations Science and Technology" round. I ran across an interesting paper that described the launch of efforts from the Naval Sea Systems Center to develop the SOST round. The bullet, which is reportedly being fielded to Marines in Afghanistan, is an open tip round that incorporates a solid a copper backing that enhances penetration of barriers. Tests show that the Mk318/SOST has comparable performance to the M855 round in terms of accuracy and performs better on targets behind glass and walls. But I understand that the Army is reluctant to field the SOST to its general purpose forces, preferring its M855 "Green Tip" round with a lead free core. As my colleague in the biz likes to say "The Army would rather be environmentally friendly than more effective."
And Ehrhart opens the whole 6.5 vs 6.8 can of worms. The readers at Defense Tech went back and forth on this when I posted my 6.8 story last year, and I'll let you all dive into that boiling oil if you want. But Ehrhart seems to come down on the side of the 6.5 since it has better effect than the 6.8 beyond 400 meters.
Ehrhart also brings up an interesting point when it comes to the beloved M-14:
In regards to the M14 EBR’s, it’s a good interim fix, but the institutional knowledge and supply system for the M14 is almost non-existent.It is a different manual of arms, it is heavy, and makes the soldier look different from his squad mates and therefore a high priority target for the enemy. The M110 is in the system, has a similar manual of arms, looks like an M16 and we have to maintain it anyway, so why duplicate systems. I would gladly take one until I could get the M110s and at least they recognize that we need the capability in the squad.
Now look, I know that love for the M-14 is cult-like. And don't get me wrong, I love shooting that bad boy in 30-06 .308. But I can't sing the praises enough of the M110. That thing is so bad to the bone, I can't even say it. I've shot it in Iraq and back here at Aberdeen both supressed and unsupressed and it just rocks. Ehrhart is right. Why insert the M-14 into the supply system when the M110 is already there? Why equip Joes with a weapon that clearly distinguishes him in a fight? Does anything make the EBR-14 any better than the M110? I honestly don't know.
Thanks again to Maj. Ehrhart for taking time out of his busy day in Iraq to chat with us. We're lucky to have such a smart, officer in the Army ranks who is willing to buck the system and reveal some truths that are hard for a lot of the service to swallow.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
“The Army would rather be environmentally friendly than more effective.”
The Army thought it could do both and doesn’t want to change standard issue rounds twice to SOST and then again to LFS. Unfortunately schedule slip on LFS has meant that SOST got fielded first.
“Now look, I know that love for the M-14 is cult-like. And don’t get me wrong, I love shooting that bad boy in 30-06.”
The M14 is chambered for .308/7.62 NATO not .30-06.
“Does anything make the EBR-14 any better than the M110?”
The m110 is direct gas impingement like the M16/M4. The M14 is short rod operated. This means that the M14 doesn’t blow gasses back into the receiver or need to be cleaned as frequently. It also means the M110 is easier to accurize because it has fewer moving parts mounted to the barrel.
M14 is in .308 not 30-06. Its in the supply line. Otherwise the M14 EBR would not be around.
While in theory the M110 is easier to accurize in practice the tricks to accurizing the M14 have been well studied for a longer period of time.
And in the field unless you are in a scout/sniper role is the theoretical difference worth it?
I would argue that before we get into the M14 vs. M110 and M4 vs. M16 arguements (let alone the M16 vs. M14 one) we need to establish the purpose for the weapon in question.
Are we trying to create a one size fits all weapon so that those in support roles as well as those in the field use the same weapon? So that those in mountains and the plains use the same ammo as those in the jungle or urban terrain?
Or are we going to get back to a mix of weapons and rounds depending on what role you are expected to play?
IE I can see one rifle for mainline infantry units deployed in open terrain and one rifle for mainline infantry units in close terrain.
I can see one carbine for those who deploy out of vehicles.
And I can see one carbine for those in support roles.
And finally, a real pistol for those who can’t carry a carbine.
If you are in a support role is there any reason you need a gun you can customize and hang all sorts of expensive, heavy, specialized gear off of? Not really …
And if you are jumping out of a vehicle (be it an APC, a helicpotor, a jeep, etc.) and you want that short handy gun you are going to have to give up some range.
I know that the arguement is that the supply chain gets all snarled up with different guns BUT I think that is an overplayed objection. Look at the large number of electronics and batteries in the supply chain. What is one or two more guns and their associated ammo? When we have FedEx making deliveries to the battlefield, what is the problem?
Personally I would rather lug a few extra poungs of gun and ammo around than electronics if that allows me to reach out and touch somebody.
And if we want to go with a compact gun we need to get away from the M16 platform to something that can have a folding stock (ala the AR18) and can use ammo that generates its full velocity with a short barrel. Sounds like a folding stock AK to me … or the paratrooper M1 carbine …
I have been following this discussion all over the web the last couple of days, and I am really enthused. I have always thought that we needed a better rifle and round for long distance shooting in places like Afghanistan. The M-4 with the 5.56 round, is a basically a varmint gun. We need rifles that can shoot across canyons, and have the oomph to get there.
The rounds we fire must also be wounding rounds, and why we continue to adhere to this ridiculous ban on 'hollow points' and 'dum dum rounds' is beyond me. War is hell, and we should be trying to end it quickly by killing the adversary or breaking their will to fight. Varmint rounds for war, is a joke. Give the troops ammo that will cause massive wounding in the body, and for that, we should be looking to the hunting ammunition industry.
As for rifles that would do the job of providing a solid 7.62 platform, I would default to what Larry Vickers likes. The FAL. Or we could go with a G-3 or the modern equivalents. There are plenty of these rifles, they are battle tested, there is plenty of industry to support those weapons, and they would be easy to field. You can also put rails on then for optics.
But on the other end of things, training must be re-evaluated for Afghanistan. I think for the spin ups for deployments, they should tack on one more week to training to work on long distance shooting. Teach the guys to work the iron sites, and also teach them how to shoot with optics. A lot of tricks and mental mindsets could be introduced in a well organized training block. Give these guys training programs that they could bring with them to Afghanistan, and when they have time to work on that stuff, they can continue their proficiency.
In the field, the platoon sergeants and even company CO's should continue training and make the time for it, even if they are in a combat zone. They can also work on immediate action drills, and SOPs that are geared more towards engaging the enemy at distance with these new tools.
I am also intrigued by the Drake Shoot, which is a method of fire that is more efficient at killing the enemy, and saves on ammo. If units worked on this stuff, applied it to their combat operations, and continued to apply Kaizen (continuous improvement) to their SOP's and actions, they will definitely see an increase in their effectiveness out there.
I agree that a more appropriate rifle is needed for afghanistan but have a few of my own ideas. The first thing is that it is asenine to be fighting in afghanistan with a 14.5 in barrel, i mean really, if you are training you're soldiers to shoot 300m how can you expext them to keep up with some douche using a mauser or enfield? We need supply all sodiers with an appropriate barrel and train soldiers to shoot well beyond 300m like usmc training. 500m minimum.
Second on the subject of a bigger round why arn't we issuing more upgraded m14's? Yes they are heavy but you can add rail systems for all of your equipment needs, they are reliable, and we still have crap loads of them.
Third if people really wanted to, we could easily solicit the industry for a new M4/M16 using 7.62×51 or better yet, just pick one of the copious companies that make that weapon.
Why not 7mm-08 and just do a barrel swap on your 7.62 machine guns?
We are changing bullets and tooling anyway (Lead Free Slug seems more of a stimulus for Big Army Ammo producers than anything else).
So if you are going to change bullets, why not pick the best one.
140 grain 7mm, in a copper core SOST configuration is about the only thing that could bridge the gap between the 7.62 and 5.56.
I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the M-14EBR is not a sniper rifle, it is just a re-purposed M-14. The M110 on the other hand is a match-grade weapon, which takes a while to build. Now, if Knights Armament can knock out some basic SR-25s, to replace the M14EBRs, as a designated rifleman weapon, I’m all for that.
For the 6.8 – 6.5 debate. I keep hearing that while the 6.5 is showing better performance at longer ranges, the cartridges sharp neck-down can have a problem feeding out of large capacity magazines.
If they would just adapted the Barrett 50Cal sniper rifle with the BORS targeting system, they've already used it over there, and it passed with cement block punching power, they could end this endless argument
Yeah minus the fact that the barrett is a 3 MOA piece of junk that rusts shut in the arms room because of inferior design, there are so many weapon systems that out perform the M107 it is ridiculous. Any 50 cal weapon system has great "punching power" aka penetration but at 3 MOA it's no longer a sniper rifle its more like an anti-aircraft/armor weapon hence why US Snipers haven't even touched the longest sniper shot. ( 3MOA at 1800m is 54" without any shooter error, a normal human body width is approximately 18-20" making it appropriate for personnel at roughly 700m. Which is less than an M24 and far less than the XM2010.
“The Army would rather be environmentally friendly than more effective.”
tell that to boatloads of deformed babies in Fallujah.
“The M-4 with the 5.56 round, is a basically a varmint gun. We need rifles that can shoot across canyons, and have the oomph to get there.”
Shooting across canyons is not the job of a soldier/Marine’s personal weapon. That’s a job for crew serves and snipers/sharpshooters. The USMC still trains on how to accurately shoot the m16 out to 500 meters. You can also get “varmint” rounds in larger calibers than .223, does that make them varmint guns too? The 5.56 is the world’s most popular assault rifle cartridge for a reason..and it’s not because it’s a varmint rifle (It’s not).
“The rounds we fire must also be wounding rounds”
Wrong-they must be rounds that kill. I’m not sure if you noticed, but the current crop of Mohammedins have been known to do drugs before going into battle. “Wounding bullets” will get our guys killed. Furthermore, if it’s a “wounding bullet” you’re after, then why are you not happy with the 5.56×45? It is,after all, a “varmint round”, so it’s not very deadly to people, meaning it wounds them more. Why aren’t you happy with that?
“Varmint rounds for war, is a joke. Give the troops ammo that will cause massive wounding in the body”
I’m not sure you know this, but the m855 round has steel in the tip to make it penetrate better against body armor. There’s even an armor piercing round that goes clean through steel plate (m955 I think). Black tip.
The Marine Corps is sending millions of new improved open tip rounds that are 62 grain 5.56 that have increased performance over the m855 round in combatting barriers and maintaing lethality. mk318 I beleive…
thanks for inserting reality into this debate
logic from an obvious veteran of the fight out there
The doctrine of fighting as a combined arms team has always been just that. Its worked well at Leavenworth and when we make large scale initial invasions of enemy held territory. However the “combined ” part falls to the wayside when sustainment operations spread the aviation and artillery assets beyond the engagement range of the enemy. This leaves the Infantry trying to secure the battle space the enemy quickly learns is their only safe fighting terrain The need of a overlap between the supporting fires and organic fires is definitely needed, and a longer range higher lethality battle rifle is needed. However, the need to relook the structure of our forces is also needed. It appears making Army Aviation a separate combat arms has been a mistake. Army Aviation professes to be a maneuver element on the battlefield. It does this at the expense of the ground maneuver unit. We really need to get aviation assets in direct support of the ground maneuver element.
we go and we enter in an enemy territory and its not our country and suddenly they become our enemies.. Why?? We are entering a war thats not ours..
“I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the M-14EBR is not a sniper rifle, it is just a re-purposed M-14. The M110 on the other hand is a match-grade weapon, which takes a while to build. Now, if Knights Armament can knock out some basic SR-25s, to replace the M14EBRs, as a designated rifleman weapon, I’m all for that.
Posted by: FormerDirtDart | March 04, 2010 at 03:45 PM ”
Exactly ^
I just returned from afghanistan in december and we I carried for the entire deployment an m14 ebr, why did the army choose it 1. it’s already in the system 2. all the ones we had shot .6 moa or lower with M118 LR thats just as accurate as the m110 i know I have shot both. The only issue is that the officers in our battalion are idiots who thought that shooting m118LR out of the m14 would destroy the barrel in 200 rounds or less so we had 2 choices for ammo either delink m80 ball for the M240B and walk around with an over sized M4 or buy our own match grade wich is what I did and 1200 rounds later my m14 still shot .53 MOA @ 100M the problem is a lot of people are not educated on weapons capabilities specially when it comes to small arms take Army Basic rifle marksmanship we are forced to zero the Acog at 25 meters even after I have to no avail tried to explain that a 100 meter zero would be more accurate but since 87% percent of army leadership both Officer and enlisted at all levels can’t see past their own noses and realize that if you read the FM for marksmanship it tells you a 25 meter zero is only an field expedient zero not the be all end all but thats just me and that why I am going SF in april because the conventional army is just plain dumb
Sgt C. Good luck with assessment. Don’t think dumb isn’t capable of showing up wearing a green Beret, but for the most part SF has learned to listen to the men on the ground. Regardless of range and moa, never forget the most powerful gadget in our arsenal that you can carry is a radio.
“The Marine Corps is sending millions of new improved open tip rounds that are 62 grain 5.56 that have increased performance over the m855 round in combatting barriers and maintaing lethality. mk318 I beleive…”
I remember getting my hands on some of these while i was in Ramadi in 2006. Unfortunately I didnt get to see their effect on target, but they’re out there.
a heavier round is needed, i think we are all in agreement. The EBR is a DM’s rifle usually, the SASS a sniper rifle. Yeah, better reach out and touch them, those long .22′s ain’t reaching.
We do need a one sizes fits most weapon and it’s pretty sad we don’t have one honestly. We need something that you can quickly swap from short, to medium to long to heavy barreled. Something that will fire in both closed and open bolt, has a large variety of magazine configs, butt-stock options, an rails to mount the rest too. Something in 6.5 or so should be a happy medium between 5.56 and 7.62. This weapon depending on config should make a great Designated Marksman rifle, Squad MG, Carbine, or infantry assault rifle. I don’t know what happened to the XM-8, but at least it had the correct idea.
I’ve heard some lame excuses in my life, but to claim that the M14 stands out as different, but the M110 doesn’t? RIDICULOUS
As for the ability to shoot across canyons, for the vast majority of our troops the problem isn’t the rifle it’s the shooter…our marksmanship training is sub-standard and dumbed down. It doesn’t matter how fancy the rifle is or how great the ballistics or target effects are if the firer doesn’t understand marksmanship to include windage, or have the ability to apply that knowledge. Stop throwing money at the weapon system and start making the firer lethal with whatever weapon they have at hand.
Hawkeye,
I don’t know about the Army, but the Marines still do train on how to shoot out to 500 yards with the m16 rifle in boot camp. 500 yards is a long ways, and some Marines have been making even longer shots using the m16a4/m4 carbines equipped with 4x Acogs (That have BDCs out to 800).
The answer would be to issue more designated marksman rifles in 5.56 or 7.62 so atleast one platoon has one at all times.
I agree that the problem is a lot more in the Army’s training than in the weapons platform. I am a Marine Reservist, and at the last qualification that I did I had to shoot the “500″ yard line at 650 yds. I hit the black 8 out of 10.
I would love to see a larger round being used though. 5.56 gets the job done, but more often than not you have to use 2-3 rounds if not more to drop a target. That is why some states banned it from being used to hunt deer, which is a man sized game animal :150-250lbs. That kind of defeats the purpose of being able to carry 2x the ammunition of a round that kills in one hit (like 7.62.)
Rock River Arms has a 7.62 AR-10 version that they call LAR-8. Looks exactly like an M-16/4 if “blending in” is what you want.
Thats an old rifle Lets just say M16 is the newer version
You are talking about AR15 thats a different story interchangeable parts and all..
Having shot M14 single as well as double lugged match rifles and later shifted to the AR / M16 platform there is no comparison to accuracy and maintainablity. The M14 required far more maintenance to keep it shooting well. I would be hard pressed to believe that M14 EBR’s are shooting under 3/4 MOA. I havent seen a photo of any with what appears to be a match grade barrel. Much less all of the other modifications that were developed over the years to get the M14 to shoot. Even the best double lugged Marine Corps Rifle Team guns will all the bells and whistles were only 1/2 MOA guns…for awhile. And then they needed regular maintenance to stay that way.
The M110 is a sniper grade weapon that requires far less maintenance, and far less specialized training on the part of armorers to keep it running right. The issue of productions capacity isnt. There armed services just have to decide which units are going to get them first. The real issue is keeping whatever you issue up and running once its fielded. Thats a training and logistic question. T
The M14 was nice. It was reliable as far as functioning. It is not as accurate as the M110. It requires to much maintenance and training to keep it shooting as well as teh M110. Its time to move forward not hold onto past because of fond memories.