Chief of staff: Army reviewing complaints over bullets

breitbart.com ^ | 05-29-08 | Jay Reeves

[Joe 6-pack]

"No LAW nor TREATY forbids their use against our CURRENT opponents...neither the Geneva nor the Hague conventions apply here.

Exactly. Our troops are only forbidden from using soft points, hollow points, etc. against the uniformed personnel of another nation. Governments are free to use soft points, hollow points or any other type of frangible bullets against civilians. Just ask any FBI or BATF Agent what type of death pills they have in their magazines. I'll bet they're not FMJs.

[TFMcGuire]

bigger is not always better. But when it is the 7.62 against the 5.56 it is.

Regards,

TMc.

[xsrdx]

You’ll not convince me that the AR-15 is a reliable enough platform nor that the 5.56 is a heavy enough bullet.

The rifle's production history, global distribution and overwhelmingly successful wartime record speak volumes in contradiction of your position.

It's not a perfect rifle, its just better than anything else available.

762 has a place on the battlefield - just not as a general issue rifle or light machinegun caliber. We may see improvements in bullet construction to enhance close range lethality from short barrels; we will not see a caliber change in the near term.

[Prole]

I will listen to the Rangers who survived Mogadishu.

Thanks.

[Prole]

Nope, it's a real life photo.

It was taken at an airshow during a "weapons of war" demonstration by the Marines and WWII re-enactors.

We need to bring the flamethrower back.

Our enemies need to fully realize they are messing with the wrong people.

[Prole]

When the b@st@rds are shooting at me, I would rather kill them in 1-2 shots.

I am not interested in wounding people who are trying to kill me.

I am interested only in killing them immediately.

[Prole]

Please.

When people are shooting at you, you will want them dead immediately.

That is why I referenced the Rangers' disappointment with 5.56 in Mogadishu.

If the Rangers want 7.62 NATO or something similarly powerful, then who the heck should deny them that?

[Manly Warrior]

Witihin the design parameters of the M193 & M855 ball rounds, meaning impact on target at or above 2400 feet per second, both of these rounds penetrate approx. 2-4 inches of tissue before yawing 90 degrees and at that point, the shear forces exceed the bullet jacket capacity, causing it to break in half (at the cannelure), causing great tissue damage and multiple major secondary wound channels (front w/ steel penetrator it the case of the M855) and rear portions, both of approximate weight), both penetrating another 4-6 inches. The accepted thickness of a human torso is ~9-11 inches.

Seldom do these rounds at combat distance (0-300m) completely penetrate human targets, delivering all 1200-1400 foot pounds of kinetic energy into the target.

The M80 762 ball round, on the other hand, yaws completely around (180) after about 4-6 inches of penetration, does not break in half, and then travels base first , usually completely penetrating. The 762 M80 at combat distances (0-300m) impacts with appox 2400 to 1800 ft/lbs of energy, delviering much less of that available energy in the target.

The M4 w/optics, lasers etc weighs in at around 11 lbs, a 30 round mag weighs 1.2 lbs, troops usually carry 7-10 magazines at the ready, and additional ammo in bandoleers, the M4 is a short 26 inches with its 14 inch barrel and collapsing stock.

The M14 weighs in at 11 lbs with a sling and a 20 round mag and is a full sized arm, mags weigh aprox 1.5 lbs, all of this w/o advanced optics or laser compatibility in all but the latest “SOPMOD” M14 variants, whose short 16 inch barrels waste most of the added velocity capablility over the 556 round(s),

The M855 pentrates body armor and steel helmets BETTER than the M80 ball , while the M80 is better against masonry/brick work structure, but not by much and certainly not able to defeat a standard brick/masonry house wall with less than concentrated fire....

Again, no magic bullets, no free lunches for our dogs of war; unfortunately.

The M4/M16 is the standard all others are judged against. It is the best in the field. Trade offs are part of life, my 416 Rigby beats all service cartridges terminal ballistics, but no one is suggesting we use an elephant gun for the basic service needs...

God Bless

[xsrdx]

Please. When people are shooting at you, you will want them dead immediately. That is why I referenced the Rangers' disappointment with 5.56 in Mogadishu. If the Rangers want 7.62 NATO or something similarly powerful, then who the heck should deny them that?

Again, largely propaganda coupled with unrealistic expectations. You did not hear the same complaints from Marines in Fallujah, a far more extensive urban engagement than Somalia.

There is no validated requirement from the Ranger regiments or anybody else for a 7.62NATO, or any other caliber, replacement for the M16 series. None. If commanders wanted it, they'd get it, period.

SCAR is being fielded in both calibers. We'll soon see which proves more popular.

I have enough time behind various platforms in both calibers under a sufficiently wide variety of conditions to make an informed decision - most who rail against the M16 and 556mm clearly do not.

[xsrdx]

There is no validated requirement from the Ranger regiments or anybody else for a 7.62NATO, or any other caliber, replacement for the M16 series. None. If commanders wanted it, they'd get it, period.

I should clarify here, the SOCOM SCAR requirement may be intended to replace the M16/M4 SOCOM wide, which would theoretically include the Ranger Regiments. Not positive though that it's a one for one exchange, it may in fact be only a partial fielding initially.

There is no validated requirement from the Army for an M16 replacement.

[Nailbiter]

for later

[Prole]

Then we agree to disagree.

I have fired plenty of 5.56 and 7.62.

If I went into a combat zone tomorrow, I would take the 7.62.

Have you fired the M1A SOCOM?

[xsrdx]

Have you fired the M1A SOCOM?

You have mail...