How reliable is the Colt Commando and its shorter barrel variants?

[Alin]

I have come across quite a bit of criticism about the reliability of M4 series carbine in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than sand-ingestion, the most persistent problem with the M4 is that because the gas port is closer to the bolt compare to the full-size M16, more hot gas in higher pressure is force back into the weapon while cycling. The result is increase in wear/breakage on parts, off-timing in cycling the bolt (leading to more part breakage because the chamber is unlocked before gas pressure drop to safe level), rise in temperature which cooks off the lubricant and compounded with sand leaving the weapon with lower reliability requiring more frequent and intense maintenance.

Does the Colt Commando and its shorter variant (barrel length below 11 inches) share the same problem? I would imagine the shorter barrel means not as much gas is force back into the weapon during cycling because most of it is bleed off in the form of muzzle-blast/flash (the reason why the earlier XM177/CAR-15 needed a flash suppressor to dampen the fireball it produce during firing).

From what I understand from reading Vietnam War literatures, the XM177/CAR-15 series carbine (or submachine gun) did not seems to share as much reliability problems as the full-size M16 rifle even though the carbine was subject to harder use, and was more popular with troops.

[HK in AK]

??? What are your sources?

[Alin]

??? What are your sources?

For which part(s)?

[HK in AK]

I have come across quite a bit of criticism about the reliability of M4 series carbine in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than sand-ingestion, the most persistent problem with the M4 is that because the gas port is closer to the bolt compare to the full-size M16, more hot gas in higher pressure is force back into the weapon while cycling. The result is increase in wear/breakage on parts, off-timing in cycling the bolt (leading to more part breakage because the chamber is unlocked before gas pressure drop to safe level), rise in temperature which cooks off the lubricant and compounded with sand leaving the weapon with lower reliability requiring more frequent and intense maintenance.

Does the Colt Commando and its shorter variant (barrel length below 11 inches) share the same problem? I would imagine the shorter barrel means not as much gas is force back into the weapon during cycling because most of it is bleed off in the form of muzzle-blast/flash (the reason why the earlier XM177/CAR-15 needed a flash suppressor to dampen the fireball it produce during firing).

From what I understand from reading Vietnam War literatures, the XM177/CAR-15 series carbine (or submachine gun) did not seems to share as much reliability problems as the full-size M16 rifle even though the carbine was subject to harder use, and was more popular with troops.

See the highlighted parts. A submachine gun is typically an automatic (select-fire) rifle that shoots a handgun cartridge (9mm, .45ACP, etc.).

[James]

I have come across quite a bit of criticism about the reliability of M4 series carbine in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than sand-ingestion, the most persistent problem with the M4 is that because the gas port is closer to the bolt compare to the full-size M16, more hot gas in higher pressure is force back into the weapon while cycling. The result is increase in wear/breakage on parts, off-timing in cycling the bolt (leading to more part breakage because the chamber is unlocked before gas pressure drop to safe level), rise in temperature which cooks off the lubricant and compounded with sand leaving the weapon with lower reliability requiring more frequent and intense maintenance.

Carbines do cycle more forcefully than rifles, but the difference in wear and tear is marginal. I've never heard of bad cycling in modern M4s or any other carbine (Colt 653, 723, etc). I have heard anecdotal stuff about early XM-177s cycling badly when an A1 flash hider was installed, but they had 10" barrels. Granted, this was all 40+ years ago, and engineers have long since figured out how to make the AR function reliably. Sand and lack of lubricant aren't friendly to any firearm, this isn't some achilles heel that belongs solely to the AR.


Does the Colt Commando and its shorter variant (barrel length below 11 inches) share the same problem? I would imagine the shorter barrel means not as much gas is force back into the weapon during cycling because most of it is bleed off in the form of muzzle-blast/flash (the reason why the earlier XM177/CAR-15 needed a flash suppressor to dampen the fireball it produce during firing).

The XM177 (10" bbl) and XM177E2 (11.5" bbl) had extended muzzle devices (they were in fact suppressors) to increase back pressure for cycling as well as to lower the flash and noise.


From what I understand from reading Vietnam War literatures, the XM177/CAR-15 series carbine (or submachine gun) did not seems to share as much reliability problems as the full-size M16 rifle even though the carbine was subject to harder use, and was more popular with troops.

More than anything else, the problems with early M16s were due to a lack of cleaning. By the time they were widely issued, problems with the original M16 had been rectified.

It's been more than 40 years since the M16 really had a problem, but some people still can't let go...

[HK in AK]

An H1 or H2 buffer have cured the problem with shorter barrels. A special coating on the BCG allows it to function in more adverse conditions. Take a look at the review SMGLee did, and you will see that even with sand they fuction 100 percent.

[kraut783]

Our SWAT team gave up the MP5's and went to the Colt commando with the short barrell in 2000....we have not had any issues with the system.

[Alin]

I have come across quite a bit of criticism about the reliability of M4 series carbine in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most of the criticisms have been floating around the Internet around the time of 9/11 and when the War on Terror heated up. Back then, before the invasion of Iraq, the excessive gas pressure wearing out the bolt and extractor was the predominate topic follow by the mediocre performance of the 5.56mm NATO green-tip.


Other than sand-ingestion, the most persistent problem with the M4 is that because the gas port is closer to the bolt compare to the full-size M16, more hot gas in higher pressure is force back into the weapon while cycling. The result is increase in wear/breakage on parts, off-timing in cycling the bolt (leading to more part breakage because the chamber is unlocked before gas pressure drop to safe level), rise in temperature which cooks off the lubricant and compounded with sand leaving the weapon with lower reliability requiring more frequent and intense maintenance.


For most of the issues in the paragraph I lifted off an article called ‘Desert Warfare Manstoppers’ by Charlie Cutshaw published in December, 2009 issue of ‘Special Weapons for Military & Police’ (here is a partial excerpt (http://www.tactical-life.com/online/special-weapons/desert-warfare-manstoppers/)). There was another article in the magazine ‘Guns & Ammo: Book of the AR 15’ (I can not remember which issue because I didn’t purchase it, but it should be fairly recent) in which the author speculate the heavy usage comparable to that of a light machine gun by SOCOM soldiers may have exceeded the design-parameter of the M4 carbine.


From what I understand from reading Vietnam War literatures, the XM177/CAR-15 series carbine (or submachine gun) did not seems to share as much reliability problems as the full-size M16 rifle even though the carbine was subject to harder use, and was more popular with troops.

For this part, I based my conclusion from reading books like ‘Secret Commandos’ and ‘Secret Wars of Americas Commandos in Vietnam’ both by John L Plaster. Another book I used is ‘Weapons of the Navy SEALs’ by Kevin Dockery. There were other materials which I came across over the years, either in print or in electronic form like the Internet. All agree that the XM177/CAR-15 carbine is both a premium and scarce commodity in high demand (and if I am not mistaken, seconded only to the 30 rounds magazine). And like the Browning automatic rifle (the BAR) from World War II, production could never meet the demand. As a result Spec-Ops soldiers, despite being the primary receivers, horde what they can get, and scavenge parts from other carbines that are no longer operational. It is not unusual for the carbine continued to be used even after the bore-lines have been shot-off because there was never enough spare part and replacement to go around (here is something off the web which talks a little about it (http://www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/Features/M4/)).

Bottom-line Spec-Ops soldiers and regular soldiers want it because it is small and handy despite its accuracy deficiency (which is understandable because once you are off the base, sometimes the vegetation is so thick you can not see 20 feet in front of you. And if you do run into enemies, often you simply sit back and let the airstrikes and artilleries do the mop-up). And let us not forget the officers and pencil-pushers who also want one to show-off with.


A submachine gun is typically an automatic (select-fire) rifle that shoots a handgun cartridge (9mm, .45ACP, etc.).

Yes I know submachine gun is weapons that fire pistol cartridges. For some reason either Colt or the U.S. military (or both) designated the XM177 series as submachine gun in the beginning (why they do that, I have not got a clue, maybe because it is small).


I have heard anecdotal stuff about early XM-177s cycling badly when an A1 flash hider was installed, but they had 10" barrels. Granted, this was all 40+ years ago, and engineers have long since figured out how to make the AR function reliably.

The XM177 (10" bbl) and XM177E2 (11.5" bbl) had extended muzzle devices (they were in fact suppressors) to increase back pressure for cycling as well as to lower the flash and noise.

I always wondered why Colt did not just slap the regular bird cage/three-****g flash hider/muzzel brake on the early XM177E2 with the 11.5 inches barrel instead of a flash suppressor. It was unlikely to have any cycling problem because when Colt designed the modern Commando, the engineers established through testing that 11.5 inch barrel is the absolute minimum length to guarantee the weapon function reliability with-out modifying the gas system (something the Israelis found out the hard way when they start chopping up their CAR-15’s 14.5 barrels to 10 inches or shorter). With the flash suppressor (which the ATF classified as sound suppressor), the XM177 could not be exported and LE agencies could not procure it without going through lengthy paperwork. And now we come to a full circle with the Colt Commando.

[James]

I always wondered why Colt did not just slap the regular bird cage/three-****g flash hider/muzzel brake on the early XM177E2 with the 11.5 inches barrel instead of a flash suppressor. It was unlikely to have any cycling problem because when Colt designed the modern Commando, the engineers established through testing that 11.5 inch barrel is the absolute minimum length to guarantee the weapon function reliability with-out modifying the gas system (something the Israelis found out the hard way when they start chopping up their CAR-15’s 14.5 barrels to 10 inches or shorter). With the flash suppressor (which the ATF classified as sound suppressor), the XM177 could not be exported and LE agencies could not procure it without going through lengthy paperwork. And now we come to a full circle with the Colt Commando.

The original XM177 had a 10" barrel, which didn't work well with an A1 flash hider, hence the development of the long suppressor. Later, when the XM177E2 came about, the barrel was lengthened but they retained the suppressor, I think because they were kind of feeling their way along. Later, when they learned that the A1 or A2 FH is effective on an 11.5" barrel, I think many of the engineers were basically like "Well I'll be damned, how about that." It was an evolutionary development.

FWIW, the Commando isn't a new development, it's been around as the Colt Model 733 for more than 25 years. Here's a Colt ad from 1984 or so:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9217/colt723733.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/i/colt723733.jpg/)

[STGN]

The US Army tested the M177E2 and a 222 page report is available online from the DOD. This is MY attempt to give brief recap of reliability, notice that I might have made mistakes.

FINAL REPORT ON PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT TEST OF SUBMACHINE GUN, 5.56-MM, XM177E2
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=AD0835073

SUSTAINED FIRE
Method: The weapons are fired at a rate of 15 rd/min for 30 minutes,
completely cooled, and then fired 40 rd/min for 5 minutes.
The foregoing schedules are fired semiautomatically and
repeated automatically. ...
4 M177E2s fired 16635 rounds and suffered 38 malfunctions = an MRBS of 438 rounds (variation: H:718 L:294)
62 malfunctions where not included in the calculation as they did not fit criteria of evaluation. If you add those you get an MRBS of 166 rounds(variation: H:457 L:96)
Most malfunctions where failures of the bolt locking back on the last round or the bolt not stripping a new round of the magazine when going forward.

There where other reliability test but they are hard to summarize.

XM177E1:
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADD701856

@James
Do you have a quote for the flash suppressor also being meant to be used to add back pressure? I thought its primary purpose was to minimize flash and noise to roughly M16 levels.
STGN

[James]

Do you have a quote for the flash suppressor also being meant to be used to add back pressure? I thought its primary purpose was to minimize flash and noise to roughly M16 levels.
STGN

I might have read that in The Black Rifle, but I can't remember for sure. It might just be anecdotal.

[Murray B]

From what I understand from reading Vietnam War literatures, the XM177/CAR-15 series carbine (or submachine gun) did not seems to share as much reliability problems as the full-size M16 rifle even though the carbine was subject to harder use, and was more popular with troops.

What I have found about many sources of literature is that they are often a little off and sometimes completely untrue. The best way I have found to discover about the downside of things is to talk to a few veterans. They know about the stuff that is never written down.

[trunk_munkey28]

What I have found about many sources of literature is that they are often a little off and sometimes completely untrue. The best way I have found to discover about the downside of things is to talk to a few veterans. They know about the stuff that is never written down.

James is pretty much the epitome of veteran, dude.

[HK in AK]

There are some muzzle breaks designed to add back-pressure or at least add some dwell time to the gas pressure to increase positive function of the M16/M4 platform. I have used a couple of them and notice a slight difference, but for me it is more important to minimize flash than to depend on the muzzle device to increase functional reliability. Instead, get the rifle to funtion 100 percent and worry about the muzzle flash with a good quality flash hider.

Here is a picture of three variants of M16/M4s. The top is a full size Bushmaster, the Second is a 11.5 inch Bushmaster Commando, and the bottom is a 11.5 inch Colt M4 Commando.

[Murray B]

FINAL REPORT ON PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT TEST OF SUBMACHINE GUN, 5.56-MM, XM177E2
Well, I wouldn’t have believed it but there it is in black and white. The U.S. Army has now expanded the definition of SMG to include weapons that use an intermediate cartridge. What is next, an M-14 SMG with 10” barrel? Does an HMG become a SMG if the barrel is cut down to 10”? This official report has opened a big can of worms.
It is very clear that the U.S. Army needs something that is currently not available in inventory but this solution is not very good. It already takes huge pressure in a normal length barrel to accelerate a 5.56 mm projectile enough to give it decent energy. How would it even be possible with a 10” barrel? What will most likely happen is a dramatic decrease in energy coupled with more smoke and crap coming out the muzzle.
Maybe they should start of by acknowledging that a new class of weapon is needed. A sort of i-SMG with “i” standing for intermediate round. Then they could look at larger bore sizes to reduce the pressure needed. I am aware of 6.5mm cal., .30” cal., and .338“ cal. wildcats that are all based on the .223 case. All of them would develop more energy for less pressure than the 5.56. Still, it would be tough to make a lightweight weapon with good stopping power, 300 yard range, and at the same time be controllable when firing full-automatic.

[James]

Well, I wouldn’t have believed it but there it is in black and white. The U.S. Army has now expanded the definition of SMG to include weapons that use an intermediate cartridge. What is next, an M-14 SMG with 10” barrel? Does an HMG become a SMG if the barrel is cut down to 10”? This official report has opened a big can of worms.
It is very clear that the U.S. Army needs something that is currently not available in inventory but this solution is not very good. It already takes huge pressure in a normal length barrel to accelerate a 5.56 mm projectile enough to give it decent energy. How would it even be possible with a 10” barrel? What will most likely happen is a dramatic decrease in energy coupled with more smoke and crap coming out the muzzle.
Maybe they should start of by acknowledging that a new class of weapon is needed. A sort of i-SMG with “i” standing for intermediate round. Then they could look at larger bore sizes to reduce the pressure needed. I am aware of 6.5mm cal., .30” cal., and .338“ cal. wildcats that are all based on the .223 case. All of them would develop more energy for less pressure than the 5.56. Still, it would be tough to make a lightweight weapon with good stopping power, 300 yard range, and at the same time be controllable when firing full-automatic.

You did know that the report is from 1968, right? :cantbeli:


What I have found about many sources of literature is that they are often a little off and sometimes completely untrue. The best way I have found to discover about the downside of things is to talk to a few veterans. They know about the stuff that is never written down.

Yeah, this and situational awareness are a good combination.

[Murray B]

You did know that the report is from 1968, right? :cantbeli:

Okay, that fits. I am aware of similar U.S. Army nonsense from about 1970 that claims the German MP44 used an intermediate cartridge. There is no mention of this 'discovery' in anything I can find that was written before the Vienam era. Who is the U.S. Army to redefine a term like SMG which had always meant an automatic weapon firing a pistol cartridge to something that fires an intermediate cartridge? I also despise the new meaning of the word "assault rifle". There was such a thing and it refers to the cannon carried on an assault gun like the STUG III. To be sensible the AK and Stoner's little rifles must be LMBRs or something. Chopping off the barrel of an LMBR does not actually make it an SMG but only a short LMBR. Common definition of terms is very important to solving any problem.



Yeah, this and situational awareness are a good combination

If you take a step back I think it is obvious that the U.S. Army really needed is a better SMG and probably still does. The Thompson was good but very expensive ($175 during WWII if memory serves) and the STEN was not so good but cost more like $5. The M-3 (why do they use "M" so much?) was an attempt to build something as cheap as the STEN but I find few praises for the thing. Solving this problem with existing inventory has been confounded by the fact that the typical 5.56 delivers 3 or 4 times the energy of the .45 ACP but the weapon is only about half the weight of a Thompson. Physics seems to be limiting what can be done with a weapon.

Now, off the topic a little, I am trying to find out from Vietnam vets that used both the M-16 and derivatives and the M-14 under actual combat conditions. They are the only people I can think of who can give an actual hands-on comparison of these weapons. Were you over there back then?

[Bacon]

Okay, that fits. I am aware of similar U.S. Army nonsense from about 1970 that claims the German MP44 used an intermediate cartridge. There is no mention of this 'discovery' in anything I can find that was written before the Vienam era. Who is the U.S. Army to redefine a term like SMG which had always meant an automatic weapon firing a pistol cartridge to something that fires an intermediate cartridge? I also despise the new meaning of the word "assault rifle". There was such a thing and it refers to the cannon carried on an assault gun like the STUG III. To be sensible the AK and Stoner's little rifles must be LMBRs or something. Chopping off the barrel of an LMBR does not actually make it an SMG but only a short LMBR. Common definition of terms is very important to solving any problem.




If you take a step back I think it is obvious that the U.S. Army really needed is a better SMG and probably still does. The Thompson was good but very expensive ($175 during WWII if memory serves) and the STEN was not so good but cost more like $5. The M-3 (why do they use "M" so much?) was an attempt to build something as cheap as the STEN but I find few praises for the thing. Solving this problem with existing inventory has been confounded by the fact that the typical 5.56 delivers 3 or 4 times the energy of the .45 ACP but the weapon is only about half the weight of a Thompson. Physics seems to be limiting what can be done with a weapon.

Now, off the topic a little, I am trying to find out from Vietnam vets that used both the M-16 and derivatives and the M-14 under actual combat conditions. They are the only people I can think of who can give an actual hands-on comparison of these weapons. Were you over there back then?

US forces are using derivatives of the M14 today.

[Argyll]

In the 6 years I have been in Iraq, and using the 10" uppers, I never had any problems with either accuracy or malfunctions other than a batch of sh*tty ammo...

It never let me down when it was needed the most.. ;)

At the moment I'm currently using a Sig 552 with Eotech and that's a sweet weapon too....

[Jippo]

Okay, that fits. I am aware of similar U.S. Army nonsense from about 1970 that claims the German MP44 used an intermediate cartridge.

I don't know about you and the U.S. Army of today, but rest of the world thinks MP44 uses an intermediate cartridge.

In fact, MP44 and 7.92x33mm Kurz were the first and defined what is an intermediate cartridge!

[James]

Okay, that fits. I am aware of similar U.S. Army nonsense from about 1970 that claims the German MP44 used an intermediate cartridge. There is no mention of this 'discovery' in anything I can find that was written before the Vienam era. Who is the U.S. Army to redefine a term like SMG which had always meant an automatic weapon firing a pistol cartridge to something that fires an intermediate cartridge? I also despise the new meaning of the word "assault rifle". There was such a thing and it refers to the cannon carried on an assault gun like the STUG III. To be sensible the AK and Stoner's little rifles must be LMBRs or something. Chopping off the barrel of an LMBR does not actually make it an SMG but only a short LMBR. Common definition of terms is very important to solving any problem.

The MP44 did in fact fire an intermediate cartridge; 7.92x33mm, rather than the full sized 7.92x57 cartridge used in K98s and other rifles.

The U.S. Army didn't classify the XM-177E2 as a submachine gun; Colt's MFG Co., the company producing them, gave them this designation. Regardless, the U.S. Army can call things whatever it wants.

I'm not aware of the new meaning of assault rifle you reference. The term has been widely accepted for at least 50 years as meaning a light, select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. The Stug III is a mobile assault gun. Not an assault rifle.


If you take a step back I think it is obvious that the U.S. Army really needed is a better SMG and probably still does. The Thompson was good but very expensive ($175 during WWII if memory serves) and the STEN was not so good but cost more like $5. The M-3 (why do they use "M" so much?) was an attempt to build something as cheap as the STEN but I find few praises for the thing. Solving this problem with existing inventory has been confounded by the fact that the typical 5.56 delivers 3 or 4 times the energy of the .45 ACP but the weapon is only about half the weight of a Thompson. Physics seems to be limiting what can be done with a weapon.

What purpose would an SMG serve today when short barreled 5.56mm carbines are available? Certain units do make linited use of certain SMGs, but by and large that design has fallen by the wayside as weapons technology has become more advanced. "M" is used to designate "Model" in U.S. Army and USMC parlance.


Now, off the topic a little, I am trying to find out from Vietnam vets that used both the M-16 and derivatives and the M-14 under actual combat conditions. They are the only people I can think of who can give an actual hands-on comparison of these weapons. Were you over there back then?

I'm 36 (you can see that in my profile, btw). You do the math. I have used both firearms extensively, both as a user and instructor for the U.S. Navy, but since I did not use them in combat in Vietnam I suppose I'm not qualified to answer the question.

[Murray B]

US forces are using derivatives of the M14 today.
Excellent, do you think any of them have used that and any of the Armalite derivatives in combat? One thing I learned many years ago was that there was often a huge difference between theory and practice. The MacAdam shield shovel was great in theory but the metal was too thin to stop a bullet and the sighting hole made it useless as a shovel. Other than that it was a great piece of kit.

I don't know about you and the U.S. Army of today, but rest of the world thinks MP44 uses an intermediate cartridge.

In fact, MP44 and 7.92x33mm Kurz were the first and defined what is an intermediate cartridge!
Yes, most of the rest of the world now uses the revisionist classification. Such is the influence of the Army’s mistake.
In fact, the classification of the cartridge is an opinion and the classification was changed sometimes in the sixties as near as I can tell.
Your statement actually proves what I am talking about, the “P” in MP really stands for pistol and so the designers clearly thought it was a machine-pistol or SMG as we call them today. Their classification is valid because the little Kurz is no bigger than the .45 (long) Colt and that is a very well known military pistol cartridge from the 19th century.
Do you know Lincoln’s riddle, “If you call a lamb’s tail a leg. How many legs does a lamb have?” A simple statement that is very useful in today’s world and I’m glad that President Lincoln shared his wisdom.

The MP44 did in fact fire an intermediate cartridge; 7.92x33mm, rather than the full sized 7.92x57 cartridge used in K98s and other rifles.
What is the Kurz’s base diameter and how does it compare to the 45 Colt with about 32.64mm case length and .480 at the base not including the rim?


The U.S. Army didn't classify the XM-177E2 as a submachine gun; Colt's MFG Co., the company producing them, gave them this designation. Regardless, the U.S. Army can call things whatever it wants.


Why can they do whatever they want? Have they gone “rogue” or something?


I'm not aware of the new meaning of assault rifle you reference. The term has been widely accepted for at least 50 years as meaning a light, select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. The Stug III is a mobile assault gun. Not an assault rifle.

A fellow calling himself a DAT called the main gun of a tank “the rifle” during a discussion that we had. Whenever I hear the term “assault rifle” I immediately think of a German long 75 of WWII vintage. The Army should not have identical designations for completely different things because that can only cause confusion. They should admit their mistake that an “assault rifle” is an AT gun only. It is not their concern that the proper usage of the term would make most “assault rifle’” laws completely meaningless.


What purpose would an SMG serve today when short barreled 5.56mm carbines are available? Certain units do make linited use of certain SMGs, but by and large that design has fallen by the wayside as weapons technology has become more advanced. "M" is used to designate "Model" in U.S. Army and USMC parlance.
Cutting the barrel of any high-power centrefire rifle to ten inches is just crazy. It seem pretty obvious to me that the only reason to do something like this is to solve some sort of problem. It may well be possible to use that action to make a decent SMG but not in that bore and not with standard service rounds. If they want a subsonic SMG then a .338 / .223 with a huge projectile should fit the bill. If longer range is desired then maybe a .30 / .223 would work. Either way they should reduce the case length to 1.625” (same as the S&W 500) so there is no doubt that it is still a pistol cartridge.



I'm 36 (you can see that in my profile, btw). You do the math. I have used both firearms extensively, both as a user and instructor for the U.S. Navy, but since I did not use them in combat in Vietnam I suppose I'm not qualified to answer the question.
In my day we didn’t graduate from high school unless we could “do the math” in our heads and with a book of trig and log tables or a slide rule. Theory is something I know but there is no substitute for combat experience and that is something I do not have. If you have combat experience with both the 5.56 and 7.62 then I am very interested in hearing what you think. Even if you have not used both in combat I am still interested in what you have to say. Keep in mind though, at thirty-something, you can only repeat what you have read about the sixties and seventies and much of what is written about those times is not what actually happened.
A few years ago I corresponded with the late David Hackworth, who always signed his messages “Hack”, about increasing historical revisionism. I also read some of the things he wrote about his experiences in Vietnam. Much of what I read by him is not in most history books and some of it contradicts what is now common knowledge. Now I would like to find out what really happened over there.

[Pete031]

The only problem I have seen is the bullet having a lack of velocity coming out of the 11.5 inch barrel. Now we are talking NATO standard. 250 meters max with the 11.5. You need that extra barrel length for the round to be stable at longer ranges.

As for everything else.... What James said.

[Murray B]

The only problem I have seen is the bullet having a lack of velocity coming out of the 11.5 inch barrel. Now we are talking NATO standard. 250 meters max with the 11.5. You need that extra barrel length for the round to be stable at longer ranges.

This was immediately obvious to me. If you think of the bullet as a piston the limited area of the base is going to be a real problem when trying to get decent velocity and energy out of the thing. Like they say F=MA and the F is determined by PSI / piston area. Note that at the beginning of WWII AT guns were 37mm or 50mm and by the end they had grown to 75 or 90mm but the penetrators had become smaller. The use of sabots allowed higher velocities with lower pressures.

What I am most curious about is what motivated them to cut the barrel down so much. It kind of reminds me of what I call the Parrish Principle by Colonel Gary L. Parrish who wrote, “When confronted with the reality of defeat, a nation will modify systems in their inventory to meet the challenges of their adversaries.” Now ignore the "defeat" part, what were the "challenges" that an 11.5" barrel would help them to meet?

[Pete031]

Interior combat..... Which is the major one. Firing from a vehicle would be another one. As it could be used as more of a PDW. Plus some people think it looks bad ass.

[trunk_munkey28]

As an armoured recce crewman, 16" would be fine, and are a nice balance of handiness, and reach out and touch some one.
11.5s are for CQB, and thats about it.
EDIT: CQB and Close Protection, should have read Argyll's post.

[HK in AK]

Good discussion ...............Thanks to the OP for bringing it up. I know Noveske built a 12.5 inch barrel to improve the characteristics, but still keep a compact design. Anyone of you tried this design? I think the design (length) is just a continued evolution that has carried over from the tanker guns, to include mobility from inside a vehicle to an ability to handle building interiors. Similar to the discussion you get with shotgun barrel lengths - ease of maneuvering.

[Jippo]

Your statement actually proves what I am talking about, the “P” in MP really stands for pistol and so the designers clearly thought it was a machine-pistol or SMG as we call them today. Their classification is valid because the little Kurz is no bigger than the .45 (long) Colt and that is a very well known military pistol cartridge from the 19th century.

It should come you as a surprise that MP-44 was also called MP-43 and StG-44. StG standing for Sturmgewehr, that is literally "assault rifle". Term assault rifle is in this day and time defined by usage of intermediate cartridge. Germans defined the whole concept by introducing the gun and the cartridge. The cartridge has nothing to do with .45 colt, it is a shortened Mauser rifle round which has three times the muzzle energy of the .45 colt.

This is common knowledge and this message is coming from Europe. It has nothing to do with U.S. Army nomenclature.

Judging from your post about StuG you have a serious problem misunderstanding quite common terms in general.

[James]

Murray,

Please refer to Jippo's post. The MP-44 was called "MP" because Hitler didn't want German industry working on new rifles; he wanted them to develop sub machine guns. When he learned what the MP-44 was and saw a test, he like it and decided it should be called the Sturm Gewehr (Storm Rifle) 44. This is generally accepted as the first mass produced and widely issued assault rifle. I don't know where you got the idea that a German 75mm anti tank gun was an assault rifle. That just isn't the case. The StuG you keep referencing is a Sturm Geschutz, not Sturm Gewehr. I suspect Colt called the XM-177 family sub machine guns as a way to expand the market for the AR family away from customers who only wanted rifles. Your opinion about the definiton of these terms really doesn't matter, as the rest of the world has accepted them.

Even with a barrel 10 or 11.5 inches, 5.56mm provides greater accuracy, range, and terminal ballistics than .45 or 9mm, the most common rounds for traditional SMGs.

Comparing the M14 and M16... Both are great rifles, both are accurate, and both are reliable. The M14 was developed from the M1 Garand. Both are considered battle rifles, not assault rifles; semi automatic, firing full sized rifle rounds that can be used effectively to 500 meters and beyond. The M14 has its roots in a time when single, well aimed shots were considered extremely important on the battled field. The M16 was both a developmental and technological advancement. Experiences in WWII and Korea made it clear that the vast majority of engagements took place within 300 meters or less, and that volume of firepower had become far more important than it had been in the past. So, a decade or so later, the U.S. Military started to adopt a lightweight select fire weapon that fired a smaller round (allowing soldiers to carry more ammunition).

As Jippo mentioned, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of various terms. You might learn more by posting less.

Have a good one.

[Murray B]

Interior combat..... Which is the major one. Firing from a vehicle would be another one. As it could be used as more of a PDW. Plus some people think it looks bad ass.

Thanks, Pete031, that is interesting information. Looks are important. In Canada the Colt rifle is a prohibited weapon but a Ruger with the same specifications is classified as restricted. The difference is that the Colt has “assault” styling and the Ruger apparently does not. It makes no sense to me so I guess only politicians and lawyers can understand the difference. That must be why they make the big bucks.

Jippo and James, our posts have strayed off topic so I will create a new thread called “What the heck is an assault rifle anyway?” Hope to see you over there.

[HK in AK]

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used synonymous with assault. The name was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
• It must be capable of selective fire;
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine

The definition comes from Encyclopedia of Firearms.

[Pete031]

Thanks, Pete031, that is interesting information. Looks are important. In Canada the Colt rifle is a prohibited weapon but a Ruger with the same specifications is classified as restricted. The difference is that the Colt has “assault” styling and the Ruger apparently does not. It makes no sense to me so I guess only politicians and lawyers can understand the difference. That must be why they make the big bucks.

Jippo and James, our posts have strayed off topic so I will create a new thread called “What the heck is an assault rifle anyway?” Hope to see you over there.


All AR type rifles are restricted in Canada, not prohibited. I own one with a restricted license.

Edit all semi-auto AR style rifles that is.

[Royal]

James, you have the patience of a saint mate...

[Bacon]

Thanks, Pete031, that is interesting information. Looks are important. In Canada the Colt rifle is a prohibited weapon but a Ruger with the same specifications is classified as restricted. The difference is that the Colt has “assault” styling and the Ruger apparently does not. It makes no sense to me so I guess only politicians and lawyers can understand the difference. That must be why they make the big bucks.


Get your facts straight before you starting spouting sh!t like it's fact.

[Jippo]

James, you have the patience of a saint mate...

My thoughts exactly...

[James]

Haha, I didn't have patience enough for the other thread.

[bas]

Your statement actually proves what I am talking about, the “P” in MP really stands for pistol and so the designers clearly thought it was a machine-pistol or SMG as we call them today. Their classification is valid because the little Kurz is no bigger than the .45 (long) Colt and that is a very well known military pistol cartridge from the 19th century.

LOL are you for real? The StG.44 series went through a number of name changes, from MP.43 to MP.44 and then to StG.44, the last proto-type before the production version was called the MP.43/1 before that there were two other proto-types the MKb.42(H) and MKb.42(W) both designed to fire the new 8mm kurz cartridge. Can you tell me what MKb stood for and why the sudden name change to MP.43/1?

[Arnie100]

^^MKb = Maschinenkarabiner (Machine Carbine). HK in AK already answered the rest!

[bas]

^^MKb = Maschinenkarabiner (Machine Carbine). HK in AK already answered the rest!

Awww spoil my fun!

[junglejim]

My M-16A1 is not a commando per se, but I've never experienced a malfunction using it and the barrel length is only 11.5 inches.