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.
I'm saying that you make do with what you have. The M4/M16 works fine. If you hit somebody in the chest, they'll go down. If they don't go down, keep firing until they do.
Semper Fi,
NYleatherneck.
The Geneva Conventions ban on hollow point bullets is committee-generated insanity. We should simply stop support for that provision of the treaty. Hollow points aren't any more cruel than FMJ, and would probably result in shorter wars.
Fouling from the gas system has not been a significant failure mode since powders were switched in the 1960s.
The real problem with the AR/M-16 platform is based on the magazine. Cheap aluminum magazines made by a rotating cycle of minority bidders makes for a very unreliable feeding system.
I've been shooting ARs and M-16s for over twenty years and even after THOUSANDS of rounds though my rifles in single sessions, I've never experienced a carbon-induced failure. It's always been the mags and now that the AWB has expired, we're seeing a much higher quality of magazine (HK steel, new stainless mags, and soon a new polymer mag) than ever before.
Beg to differ - the .308 is not a ballistic twin of the 30-06. The issue is downrange stopping power - similar, but the 30-06 could "make a long-distance call" with more authority than the .308 could.
Part of the advantage the .308 had was that the weapon would be lighter & combat load would be less for an equal (and "equivilant" firepower) ammo load. The .308 is a shorter cartridge, thus smaller receiver.
AK Ping!, M14/M1A Ping!, M1 Garand Ping!
And then get killed by his buddy while you're reloading... um, sounds like a bad idea to me.
Why fire two quick shots instead of using the three round burst (provided the current M16 have this, the last one I used was the A2)?
Body armor has rendered hollowpoints irrelevant on the battlefield anyway.
It would, however, make a relatively heavy weapon, heavier.
Modern hollow points are not technically considered "expanding" bullets, because they don't function that way. They don't mushroom like a pistol bullet, but more often fragment like their FMJ counterparts.
Hollowpoints are used for tactical ammunition because the process of manufacturing them makes them more consistent and accurate. Our own JAG has ruled that hollowpoints like the Sierra MatchKing are acceptable for combat use.
replace with an AR10 upper maybe.
The A3 has the 3 round burst and NO full auto setting, which is much disliked. The A4 has three setttings (single, three, full) or two (single, full), if memory serves.
I'm still here... While not ideal, it could be worse.
50-140 Sharps
7.62x51 won't fit through the magwell of the lower.
True, we could still be stuck with the .30 Carbine.... bloody pistol caliber...
"When combined with a slow twist rate, this creates a situation where the round is designed to tumble. The length of the 5.56 during a tumble is greater than the surface area of a hollow point in the same size round."
***
Good point. Yet the round tumbles only when it hits something, as does a perfectly-spiralling football in mid-air. Some people think that the original M16A1 rifle made the rounds tumble as soon as they left the muzzle. But I remember pulling the targets at the rifle range on Parris Island in 1980 at 500 yards. The rounds made perfect small holes hitting the paper, and kicked up at least a foot of dust when they hit the sand pile behind the "butts".
How about frangible's? I've heard reports that those work well.
I was referring to the weapon itself, not the round.
Personally, I could care less if a quad 40 was aimed & fired at somebody.
"Rules" for warfare are so, like, 19th Century.
Hari-Kerry seems enamoured [that a nuanced spelling ;)] of Jengis Con, so we should make him happy, and fight along those lines, with whatever weapons are at hand.
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.