Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Bullet Blues [5.56mm round stopping power inadequate. Study says aim higher and fire two]
Strategy Page ^ | Feb 2, 2007

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-252 next last
To: rlmorel

...with or without grenade launchers?


61 posted on 02/02/2007 12:55:30 PM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norton

1) There have been a number of studies by the Army and USMC since the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign and through the current Iraq campaign that are all coming to the same conclusion - and yes, it's the same result that we saw in Vietnam.

FYI, the original as-designed M-16 and ammo combo *didn't* jam. The government changed the ammo spec afterwards and then created the jam-o-matic. The AR-15 jams for other reasons too, but I thought I'd mention the reason for the powder jams.

2) The actual reports do name various personnel (by rank, not name) that submitted statements.

3) They're still doing it. Same thing happens when Marines go into the field with the M16A3 and later variants - the 3 round burst limiter gets "combat lossed".

4) Most of them with a choice *are* using a 1911 variant. The only reason we have a 9mm sidearm is because of the NATO treaty obligations (and because first we forced 7.62mm on them, then forced 5.56mm on them, so the Europeans returned the favor with the 9mm.)


62 posted on 02/02/2007 12:55:34 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
"Garands (not the later development we know and love as the M14) have two big problems - extremely limited magazine capacity and they tell the enemy when you're out of ammo. Not good."

"Fighting the last war"...
Garand was built (1936) with an 8 round magazine & that god awful clip because a flat bottom was believed better for trenches and for use of a sandbag rest.

63 posted on 02/02/2007 12:56:13 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Yeah. I was truely unhappy when they jerked my M14 from my affectionate hands and gave me that BB gun.


64 posted on 02/02/2007 12:56:24 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Yes, but by using the 7.62 NATO, that means that you can either supplement the squad machine gunner's ammo, or if he has extra, use it in your weapon (if he has an M240G, not the POS M249).


65 posted on 02/02/2007 12:57:28 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett


6.5 Grendel - AR15/M16/M4 lower with a new upper, that eats a MUCH better round - AR10 ballistics (the 7.62 or .308 to you folks) in an AR15 package. Throws a 120 gr. Nosler at 2900 fps at 100 yds. Typical 7.62 NATO performance is 144 gr. at 2700 fps. We paid our dues to get the Stoner design tweaked. Why not get what we paid for with a "bolt-on" mod which is already designed and in production?
66 posted on 02/02/2007 12:57:38 PM PST by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad
Exploding, mushrooming, and other bullets that cause "unnecessary harm and suffering"

But a quick death prevents both. Having several neat, .22 or .30 cal holes punched through you OTOH, IS needless pain, harm, & suffering.

Don't some of "them" also bitch about the use of .50BMG against a person with a rifle on this same ground; or, at least on grounds of "disproportionate" force?

It's the enemy, stupid; kill them quick and in overwhelming numbers, by any means at hand, until they all die or quit.

67 posted on 02/02/2007 12:59:26 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RKV

The AR-15 is fundamentally flawed and will continue to be so. There is no way to fix the eventual fouling of the upper receiver and chamber.

Stoner fixed the design with the AR-18, but nobody in the US was interested at the time.

The IRA liked it in the form of the AR-180, and they gave the Brits fits with it. Very reliable weapon, equal to the AK, and with the accuracy of the AR.


68 posted on 02/02/2007 1:00:24 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Would it be feasible to re-bore the M4 and M16 to use 7.62mm?



No, because the overall length of the cartridge is too long to fit in the magwell, and the bolt doesn't go back far enough to allow them to feed.

But there are cartridges that have larger bullets and case diameters than the 5.56 with the same overall length, which will work just fine (subject to lots of tweaking and R&D, which is where good gunmakers earn their stripes.)


69 posted on 02/02/2007 1:00:51 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Flatus I. Maximus
Does the Geneva Convention apply to out of uniform combatants?
70 posted on 02/02/2007 1:01:03 PM PST by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

That's why .50 BMG is designated as an "anti-materiel" or "anti-vehicle" caliber, as are the rifles that fire it.


71 posted on 02/02/2007 1:01:13 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: norton

Garand design was updated by the Italians... Think of a M14 in 30-06.
I believe it was designated the BM-58. Used to be available back in '70s; Garand gas-operation and 20rnd mag. in 30-06. Wish I'd bought one when they were around.


72 posted on 02/02/2007 1:01:24 PM PST by Rights-AND-Responsibilities
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

No problem if you just shoot em in the face.

That's the way I do it.


73 posted on 02/02/2007 1:01:49 PM PST by American_Centurion (No, I don't trust the government to automatically do the right thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Friend_from_the_Frozen_North
It's actually the the Hague Convention of 1899, not one of the Geneva Conventions.

The Convention also doesn't mention hollow points or mushrooming bullets. That is how we have interpreted the convention.

It's an interpretation of one line in Section II, Chapter I, Article 23:

---

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--

To employ poison or poisoned arms;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

---

However, since that is how we have interpreted it for a very long time it would be very difficult to change that interpretation.

74 posted on 02/02/2007 1:03:55 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rights-AND-Responsibilities

The .308/7.62 NATO is the .30-06's ballistic twin.

And the M-14 *is* an updated Garand-type already. The BM-*59* (the 58 was the prototype) is largely pointless.


75 posted on 02/02/2007 1:03:56 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

They should make the case that they're just trying to remove the terrorist's clothing =)


76 posted on 02/02/2007 1:04:13 PM PST by wastedyears ( "Gun control is hitting your target accurately." - Richard Marcinko)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
I would disagree with you that the design is flawed. I own two ARs (along with a gun safe full of other goodies) and have some experience with the design. The problems our guys are seeing are not the ones introduced when the design was initially fielded - we got the chrome lining of the barrels now and the right kind of powder. What we are seeing is lack of stopping power and range. That we can fix, without going through years of testing and failures in the field.
77 posted on 02/02/2007 1:05:39 PM PST by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
"...original as-designed M-16 and ammo combo *didn't* jam. The government changed the ammo spec afterwards...'

Way i heard it was that commercial ammo did't jam but using up our stockpile of dirtier WW2 powder overwhelmed the gas system..(?)

Of course the solution was 'troops should clean their weapons more often'.

78 posted on 02/02/2007 1:05:44 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

While at Suwon AB,Korea in 69-70 our CSC building had a huge room full of M-14's with boxes and boxes of ammo. Whle working in the armory I occasionlly would take one out to the range for fun...definately more bang for the buck but harder to control...three shots and you've climbed off sight picture. A mixture of tools (weapons) to get the job done seems desireable but logistically becomes harder to support. Personally, I think an AR-10 would be a great all purpose weapon, espcially if they sported it into M-4 configuration for house to house duty.


79 posted on 02/02/2007 1:05:52 PM PST by vigilence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYleatherneck

Double Tap ping!...*W* I wont tell if u dont...


80 posted on 02/02/2007 1:05:53 PM PST by M-cubed (Why is "Greshams Law" a law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson