Thursday, October 12, 2017

The U.S. Army Wants A Rifle That Will Never Miss

Chilean and U.S. Special Forces soldiers fire at targets at the Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center, Miss., during a bilateral training exchange organized by Special Operations Command South. (Staff Sgt. Osvaldo Equite/Army)

Defense News: Army researchers are building can't-miss rifle optics

Army researchers are working on four current programs geared toward making it so future shooters can’t miss.

Darren Ward reviewed the progress of the programs at this year’s Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition.

Ward is the head of the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Optics and Targeting Branch.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I can see the day when there are 3 settings on a rifle .... single shot. automatic, and a sniper kill shot where the rifle fires for you when you paint a long distant target that you want to take down.

Hat tip to Fred for this link.


Hans Persson said...

The two first settings automatically becomes obsolete if the third exists.

James said...

The line I shoot will never miss:

Jay Farquharson said...

"In terms of the number of bullets fired by U.S. forces, a widely quoted report by Andrew Buncombe in The Independent (US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed – 25 September 2005) revealed that an estimated 250,000 bullets had been fired for every “insurgent” killed in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"On average, a US rifleman will glimpse a Taliban once a month.”

Anonymous said...

@Hans you're wrong. Even in the army you don't always want to hit your targets. For example:
1. Warning shots
2. Suppression fire not intended to kill (eg when you want to capture a target but must not kill him/her to get Intel)
3. Civilians

Anonymous said...

Also. of the reasons why the army wants this is because of historic combat issues in Vietnam. Studies showed that many US soldiers did not want to actually hit Vietnamese combatants/did not shoot to kill,so you had people often shoot somewhat close to the enemy, in hopes that the guy next to you actually did the killing. The war was so unpopular and drug use was so rampant that you had people literally shooting in the air instead on the target (s) all the time. The Vietcong however did not have the same feelings (to them it was a justified war in defense)..they shot to kill
In a war that (wrongfully)was measured on body count this issue was very important to the military leaders and surely hasn't been forgotten

Jay Farquharson said...

"The book is based on S.L.A. Marshall's studies from World War II, which proposed that contrary to popular perception,[1] the majority of soldiers in war do not ever fire their weapons, because of an innate resistance to killing. Based on Marshall's studies the military instituted training measures to break down this resistance and successfully raised soldiers' firing rates to over 90 percent during the Vietnam War.[2]"

War News Updates Editor said...

In the first few months of the war (Second World War) my father told me that he spent most of the time hiding in fox holes. This resistance to kill broke down with time. so that after 3 and a half years of war .... he had no problem shooting at the enemy. I think this is the reason why there is a push to develop automatic weapon platforms that once engaged, will locate and fire on the enemy automatically. No hesitation there, and no fear of being shot at.

Anonymous said...

Wnu - keep in mind on which side your dad fought on. The Germans were on the wrong side and many of them knew it (hence the many attempts to kill Hitler even years before the war was lost). The Russians, Americans etc were on the right side and knew it. It is much easier to kill a nazi or Isis member, than EG a Russian who's just defending his country. The nazis were invading. The Russians fighting off. Totally different mindset. In Vietnam, Americans felt - not all but many - that they were the aggressors. Sure the willingness to kill increases perhaps over told, but it's still different to a Vietcong who clearly saw Americans as intruders.

Show me hundred Isis fighters, I'd still try to kill as many as possible even if outnumbered. When you're convinced your cause is justified you become a killing machine.

I'd argue the same holds true to north Korea today and why I think we could not win against them in any invasion scenario. That's why I'm also upset about china selling the mobile missile launchers because it only leaves us two options now to take out their nukes 1)use multiple low yield nuclear weapons 2)accept north Korea as a nuclear power (which will mean strategic defeat in Asia, aside from the risk to the homeland)

Jay Farquharson said...

Brigadier General SLA Marshall, of the US Army, conducted a detailed study of US Army combat missions in Europe in WWII and the Korean War, and discovered that in a Standard Rifle Platoon, on average, in combat, out of 20 men, only 2.1 deliberately tried to kill enemy soldiers, the rest, did so either accidentally, or not at at all.

"Marshall's work on infantry combat effectiveness in World War II, titled Men Against Fire, is his best-known and most controversial work. In the book, Marshall claimed that of the World War II U.S. troops in actual combat, 75% never fired at the enemy for the purpose of killing, even though they were engaged in combat and under direct threat. Marshall argued that the Army should devote significant training resources to increasing the percentage of soldiers willing to engage the enemy with direct fire."

It's become it's own science, "Killology",

fazman said...

They were on the wrong side ,you were on the right side?
What side were the bombadiers following bomber Harris's orders on?
What side were those at my lai on?
History allows the luxury of hindsight, the present does not

Jay Farquharson said...


Like Marshall's work, you have the Strategic BDA,

99.999 % of US "Strategic" bombing raids, in WWII, missed their targets, by 1.75 miles.

In the last year of WWII, Germany produced more small arms, medium arms, heavy artillary, tanks and aircraft, than in any year since 1936.

They just didn't have the fuel, or 18.8 million men anymore.

Wrong side, right side, really doesn't matter.

17 years in Afghanistan dude.