Posted on 12/21/2005 5:59:09 PM PST by strategofr
The U.S. Marine Corps, responding to reports from their troops, are investigating whether they should replace the current 62 grain bullet, used in the 5.56mm round fired by the M-16 and M-4 rifle, with a heavier bullet. Since last Summer, the marines have been making the heavier, 77 grain bullet (normally only issued to Force Recon and commando troops) available to commanders, to use in place of the rounds with the 62 grain bullet.
However, only six percent of the 10.6 million 5,56mm rounds of ammo the marines have in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the heavier 77 grain version. The debate over the effectiveness of the NATO standard 62 grain bullet (and all 5.56mm) ammo has been going on for decades, and has only intensified since 2002 (when it was used a lot in Afghanistan). The marines and the army are working together on the problem, and will present their findings early next year.
Many in the U.S. Army are in favor of using a larger caliber bullet (7.62mm, as used in sniper rifles like the M-14), or a 6.8mm round. The problem with the 5.56mm round was that it was not designed to take down man sized targets (or animal equivalents like white tailed deer, or black bears), and is less effective in blasting through walls and vehicles during urban fighting. When first introduced, it was intended for use by draftees, who were often in need of automatic fire capability (because so few were marksmen).
This meant troops had to be able to carry more ammo, thus the utility of the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm bullet could wound, or kill with a head or torso shot. But a determined enemy was often not stopped by 5.56mm fire. Today, all the infantry are volunteers, much better trained to hit targets with single shots, and increasingly demanding a bigger bullet for doing that.
Why so low a percentage if all these volunteers want heavier bullets? Are their commanders denying them?
Back to the future - time to break out all that surplus .308.
Never send a .22 to do a man's job.
What exactly would it take to re-chamber/re-configure ALL the Armed Forces service rifles, handguns & carabines with ANY heavier round (which I am highly in favor off)???
Grunts have hated the M16 and that bullshit ammo since Vietnam.. can't believe that's still what we're giving our guys.
Must have had a lot stockpiled... jeez, I remember eating c-rats dating back to the Korean war, and this was in the early 70's.
Grunt's always get the short end of the stick...
As I recall, the switch to 62gr required a change in
rifling twist, and the 62gr isn't recommended for early
M16s and AR15s.
Does the even heaver 77gr have the same issue?
If the DOD can keep the politics and politicians out of
it, I suspect they'll eventually end up with something
around 7mm - as predicted by experts for the last century
or so.
> Back to the future - time to break out all that surplus .308.
And in fact, a lot of M14s have been taken out of
storage and issued. But I'll bet an M4/M16 lower with
a 6.8 upper is both a lighter and easier to shoot
weapon (esp. on full auto, in which mode the M14 is
reportedly nearly uncontrolable).
But, but . . . these are assault weapons, capable of bringing down a building with just a single bullet. And full metal jackets are even more lethal than anything except dumdum bullets.
/ Can you tell I hate the anti-gun media? rant off
The 5.56 mm round was adopted in place of the 7.62 NATO round in the 1960s when McNamara's number crunchers determined that volume of fire, as well as wounding enemies rather than killing them, was more effective than lethal precision fire. Another case of what looks good on paper doesn't work so well in real world combat...
*Ping*
...of course, even with the 6.8, we still have our dust-sucking Colt rifles, but hey, it's making a start at improvement that counts.
Heavy bullets work better on live targets, and retain more foot-pounds of penetrating energy at longer ranges, so if this bullet weight works, it is well worth supplying it.
OTOH....the 5.56 owes almost ALL of its effectiveness to high velocity driving a short, therefore inherently unstable-after-impact bullet, which tumbles after the slightest impact, breaking at the cannelure, and causing an unpredictable and erratic wound. Not a stop, but a wound.
I presume that the heavier bullet would be longer, which may make it more stable after impact, which may or may not be a good thing. Deep penetration increases the possibility of a stop, but in this case, a .223 bullet makes a very narrow hole, so good luck.
Getting several bad ideas to work effectively is a nice academic exercise, but not for the protection of our fighting troops in active battle. This round is mostly for shooting at groundhogs and coyotes, and those who do that often prefer the .22-250 anyway. This gizmo was a stinker from day one, and never should have made it from the last century, in the hands of our military.
...and then we have the pistol round that the NAZIS lost WWII with.....another miserable replacement for our own proven gear, that still works, when given the chance.
Mark
(the standard 7.62mm NATO bullet weighs 147gr)
And remember, the Germans were shooting bolt action rifles! Each round had to be manually chambered!
Mark
Canards and urban legends abound. The M855 cartridge in question will out-penetrate the .308 in use, and there is little or no distinction in terms of lethality on people.
Shit, in Nam they were 55 grain.
A pound of feathers and a pound of rocks both weigh the same. By that, I mean that even though a solider/Marine would carry fewer rounds of a higher caliber, the total weight carried would be pretty similar, I imagine.
Pity the army where all the available ammo has been issued to, and is being carried by, the soldiers. Soldiers could be issued 100-150 rounds each, but there must be a stockpile from which to replenish their supply on short notice - and that stockpile better be bigger than the number of 10 million rounds suggests.
They had machine guns, too.
Why not bring back the Tommy gun?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.