Glad to oblige- yours truly in much younger days, at the end of a 5-round burst at 550 rounds per minute. Note the lack of muzzle rise:
Posted on 02/02/2007 12:23:59 PM PST by John Jorsett
Troops from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are still complaining about the "inadequate stopping power" of the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 family of assault rifles. Last year, the army did a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints. Troops reported many reports where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating. The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away. The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops. Marines got the same advice from their commanders. But infantrymen in the army and marines both continue to insist that the problem is not with their marksmanship, but with the 5.56mm bullet. Marines say they have used captured AK-47 rifles in combat, and found that the lower velocity, and larger, 7.62mm bullets fired by these weapons were more effective in taking down enemy troops.
The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls. The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment. The army report was not well received by the troops, and there is still much grumbling in the ranks over the issue.
Depending on whether you live in America or in the PRK (like I do) yes, you can own one of those. http://www.alexanderarms.com/grendel.htm
McNamara is full of shit, just as he always was.
Show me one Ordinance Officer or weapons designer that will make that claim. If McNamara made that claim, he was just showing his ass.
Or, is our military too cheap to want to spend the $$ on a few extra micrograms of lead in a larger bullet.
I didn't know the Russians has developed a hollow underneith the jacket that causes the bullet to 'deform' - trust the Russians to think of that one.
Regarding the Geneva Convention and the beheadings, I am beginning to think we are the only ones to do conform to International Convention.
I know I have heard of the Hague Convention before but simply "spaced it" so - thanks to each of you...
Um... You need to go check the physics - any expanding round will have difficulty penetrating armor. FMJ is much better at penetrating armor.
Oh, no argument about Strange being an idiot.
That said, he *was* SecDef, and that *was* his stated logic. Remember, he ordered its adoption despite strenuous objection from generals.
I didn't say I agreed with him.
I understand the 5.56 not being able to blast through doors and walls, but isn't the long long supposed to tumble on impact and breaking apart causing large hyperbolic tissue damage?
What is with this through and through finding?
While that's an excellent point, the mags used in the military are often old, worn, and prone to failure. Also, many units don't teach troops how to clean magazines, and keep reusing bad ones.
Having shot an M-14 on full auto at a machine gun shoot, it is definitely grabbing a tiger by the tail
The M-14 I carried was modified for full auto. I never had a problem as long as I stayed with short bursts.
That's like comparing a VW Bug to a Humvee and a tank - and suggesting the Bug will work just as well as the other two.
Glad to oblige- yours truly in much younger days, at the end of a 5-round burst at 550 rounds per minute. Note the lack of muzzle rise:
Is one of them SMOKING????For Shame !!!
Reminds me of our attitude when the first packs of cigarettes arrived in sundry packs with the Surgeon General’s Warning.
If cigarettes are hazardous, what about those people shooting at us with everything from AKs to 130 mm howitzers?
It's a question of logistics and tactics, not cartridge design.
In WWII, soldiers were trained to fire the 30.06 cartridge in aimed fire and slower intervals. When they got to the European theater, they realized that gunfights and battles are won on volume of fire and maneuver. They were retrained OJT to provide suppressing fire so that the rest of their unit could maneuver.
Since then, this has been the policy for small arms engagements. As a result, a higher volume of fire and, subsequently, more ammo, was required. That's how we got the 5.56mm round. Smaller and lighter so they can carry more, and much more controllable on automatic fire. The M14 has range and penetration, but it was worthless on automatic. Any trained soldier can effectively deliver suppressive fire with the M-16/M-4.
Actual studies done on the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round show impressive tissue damage caused by the fragmentation of the 5.56mm round. Some have claimed that the damage is indistinguishable from the 7.62mm round, which does not fragment nearly as well. The problem with newer M855 62gr 5.56mm rounds is that they travel somewhat slower than the older 55gr M193 rounds and don't fragment as well.
I've heard guys claim that they emptied an entire magazine into their target and "He didn't go down."
And I tell them, "You missed."
Not at all.
The smaller caliber advocates worked back in the 50's and 60's. Their argument was that studies show the overwhelming majority of rifle kills come at relatively close range, that the longer range of a .30 cal. was not often used. Plus, they wanted to design a weapon for a urbanized draftee army that were not marksmen going into the military and who could use the extra rounds they could carry of lighter ammo. It wasn't a conspiracy to save money.
That said, I still prefer a .30 cal rifle and .45 cal. pistol because they have greater stopping power, especially as personal armor technology improves. And, our professional military develops better marksmen, who can put the longer range to good use.
It also says that if your opponent won't follow the rules, you don't need to either.
"That's why .50 BMG is designated as an "anti-materiel" or "anti-vehicle" caliber, as are the rifles that fire it."
If you haven't seen a .50 hit it is impressive. In a video from Afghanistan these Taliban types literally explode.
No.
Exactly.
Magazines were an afterthought.
Even if you get new mags, seale in the NSN package, how do you know they were made correctly? There's no "Go/No Go" gauge for magazines.
I've got over 100 AR magazines of various manufacture.
About twenty of them are my old USGI magazines. Several of those are questionable, but they're training mags so I prefer to deal with malfunctions in training.
However, even some of my new-in-bag mags were remarkably out of spec. The back of the mag was separated, cracked feed lips, etc. These mags were never used.
Newer non-contract (private market) mags are much better because the guy paying $15-$20 a mag expects this. He's not buying 2 million of them on a cost+ contract.
As soon as .mil considers the magazine to be an integral part of the weapons system and not an expendable item, we're going to see reliability jump up. The M-16 is still one of the finest assault rifles in the world and foreign nations are still adopting these over other designs, even locally made weapons.
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.