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.
The 5.56mm round achieves its best fragmentation at sub 100m ranges. Inside that, it's downright deadly. The 7.62mm offers no advantage because it doesn't fragment as well and only leaves a slightly larger hole. It doesn't offer the volume or controllability of the 5.56mm. It's only advantage is increased penetration on structures.
While the BAR is considered obsolete, you could do a lot worse for a heavy weapon- like the later M-60, it had a reputation for "making things happen" when you opened fire with it.
It appears the most applicable part of the Hague Convention of 1899 isn't what I quoted in my earlier response but is instead Declaration III which can be found here.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm
"Laws of War : Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899"
I was close, but still not really correct.
Nope, it's where it started at the beginning of the burst- it's very easy to shoot accurately. Anyone who can handle a full-size rifle or shotgun can be made into a BAR Man with about 30 minute's instruction. My wife is scarily accurate with the thing.
DC snipers proved, .223 is deadly. It can enter you leg and exit your chest, and vice versa.
At under 200 yards, you can't beat a .223 55 gr. If you need a bit of penetration, you trade off with a 62gr green tip.
See #150.
"Cost" includes time, effort, and disruption. Retooling ammo factories, doubling inventories & processing, transitions, sorting out problems with new stuff, etc. - all is huge.
Yes it can be done, and has been done before. Not something one wants to do unless the benefits are dramatically superior and cannot be achieved any other way.
These "5.56 sucks" discussions tend to not note that the new Mk.262 round (a 5.56 subtype, a hot & heavy 77gr HP) seems to be doing quite well. Yes, the M855 is a problem - because it wasn't meant for that application. The Mk.262 is apparently doing quite well, and was designed for that application.
Much better to go with something that works AND fits the existing supply line.
"I would go with this for such close-in, running around corners operations:..."
***
I thought the Germans in WW2 solved the "around corners" problem with their "krummlauf" version of the STG44...
But I think if they could develop a round that is small and expands, it would be better than a "heavy" round with lots of recoil.
I would make a expanding small round with no recoil and with 100 or 200 round magazine capability.
But then there is the Geneva Convention on ammo to that prevents that.
bump
And that brings us back to the lead article. The tradeoff is proving unacceptable; the "penetrator" is doing so much more cleanly than is desireable.
Which begs the question- which side had the right idea? The Soviets would have had the same concerns as us- a war of attrition (thus why not use lighter ammo?). They chose to go with the heavier round. The 7.62 works in all situations that the smaller one does. The Soviets maybe figured it was better to kill your enemy than to let him live to fight again.
The 7.62 would seem the better choice in Iraq- according to the infantry. Perhaps the Soviets had a longer range of vision concerning weapon evolution and possible future battlefields.
I know that personally, I would rather carry a 30/30 than a .22 rifle. I mean, I know you ought not to shoot squirrels with a deer rifle but these things will happen on occasion. It's mightily impressive what a 30/30 will do to a small critter like a bunny or squirrel (or- skinny Arabs).
The 5.56 in the M16 platform has practically no recoil.
The 5.7 round is probably what you're looking for, putting 50 rounds in a very compact CQB package. That's probably the best power/capacity tradeoff you're looking for.
It's smaller and lighter than a regular rifle. The individual AP bullets penetrate well, but have poor stopping power, so it's mean to be used to fire bursts.
While it's effective at longer range than a handgun, it's still an in close weapon. (Which is what you suggested it be used for)
It's kind of large in heavy compared to a pistol (and it eats lots of ammo), so it's really doesn't replace a pistol as a backup weapon. It doesn't have the range to replace a rifle. You also don't want to have your forces using too many different types of weapons or supplying ammo becomes a logistics nightmare.
It's an impressive firearm that does what it was designed to do well. It would be good for clearing buildings, but I just don't see it having wide enough appeal due to it's lack of effective range.
What do you expect from the government that gave us the flush twice toilet?
When this rifle first came into use, I remember that the explanation for the smaller-sized high velocity round was that it would tumble on impact and create much worse damage than the old MI round.
But I think if they could develop a round that is small and expands, it would be better than a "heavy" round with lots of recoil.
I would make a expanding small round with no recoil and with 100 or 200 round magazine capability.
But then there is the Geneva Convention on ammo that prevents that.
Sorry about the double post, at work, and the stupid work tasks distracted me.
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.