Posted on 03/27/2002 4:33:59 AM PST by Scutter
Carrying 50% more rounds doesn't help if you need to hit a target 300% more often to make 'em go down & stay down.
Carrying 50% more rounds doesn't help if you need to hit a target 300% more often to make 'em go down & stay down.
I don't think that has been shown.
What I do understand is that most firing is done for suppressive effect, and that mitigates for having more rounds that are lighter.
Walt
Nope, it's legit. I got it too, via a very respectable source. John Farnham is someone to listen to.
.223 has a long history of insufficent stopping power. It's good enough to make a good argument by bureaucrats & armchair warriors, but the grunts using them tend to find less than satisfactory results.
Nope, it's legit. I got it too, via a very respectable source. John Farnham is someone to listen to.
.223 has a long history of insufficent stopping power. It's good enough to make a good argument by bureaucrats & armchair warriors, but the grunts using them tend to find less than satisfactory results.
Thanks, then.
Break out the M-14's!
Walt
Good point. :) Aim low.
I remember when the M16A2 was introduced there was some grumbling because when you slow fired it on the rifle range, the trigger pull was different every time; it was 'a' for the first round, 'b' for the second and 'c' for the third. That made it difficult for the shooter to add that to his BRASS technique. What application such has in contact with the Talibunnies, I don't know. Probably none.
Walt
Point taken, but...seems it takes 3 rounds of .223 to equal the stopping performance of 1 round of .308, completely undoing any weight advantage of the .223.
Parts of this email are a bit suspicious. When they talk about "solid hits", at what range, and where was that hit?
Presumably "solid hits" means a good center-of-mass hit within 300 yards. "Black Hawk Down" repeatedly documents troops getting frustrated that good .223 hits at medium distances frequently did not stop targets.
Are the troops attempting to do a double-tap?
That should not be necessary with a rifle. Double taps & Mozambique Drills (2 COM, 1 head) are designed for pistols, which are understandably underpowered. In combat with a rifle, the first shot should reliably drop a target; you don't want to waste time having to line up the second shot when several other Taliwhackers are bent on whacking your tail.
I'm also curious to the reference to 62-grain SS109 "green tip".
Apparently it's standard issue now. The benefit of longer range & greater penetration is offset by less damage to the target.
Finally, I'm a bit curious of the mention of the 77gr. Sierra Matchking.
Heavy hollowpoints have a greater impact on the target.
The hollow point bullet MIGHT be considered in violation of the Hague Convention.
The grunts on the ground over there are more interested in surviving by dropping enemies than in quibbling over debatable rules developed by stuffy foriegners in suits decades ago.
Unless further details can be verified,
Consider it verified. I got a copy of it from a respectable source, it's written by a respected armed defense instructor with military connections, and is consistent with many other front-line reports.
My first thought was to ship (sneak?) arms and ammo into the war zone for them, but that really isn't practical.
Our government has the logistics and funds to purchase and ship proper arms. So, contacting our congressmen and trying to get things done that way is more practical.
I suspect that civilians in this country will need the firearms and ammunition that they have for use in this country.
If you can't use HPs, (aint't that a kick: thermobaric bombs are A-Okay, but HPs are verboten!), and you must use a pistol in FMJ ball ammo, the .45 is as good as it gets, cause it doesn't need to expand, it already makes a big hole with lots of penetration.
Exactly. That longer range and penetration of the new 5.56mm gives up a LOT of wounding/incapacitating abilty compared to the squirrely old 55 grain at 3250fps stuff which I still prefer.
The Russian ammo in 5.54mm is actually much better than ours in terms of terminal ballistics: they are designed to flip end for end on impact EVERY time, making a really nasty wound channel. The Afghans used to call them "poison bullets" when the Russians introduced them in their AK-74s.
The 'poison bullets' are extremely cleverly designed. The lead "driver" in back pushes the steel "penetrator" into the void on impact, so it has good initial penetration (helmets, kevlar etc) but then the balance of the slug is totally thrown out of whack from it's 'flight ballistics' and it keyholes damn near every time. The bullet does a 180* flip in about ten inches of flesh, dumping all its energy into a hellacious wound channel. About like our old 55 grain 3250 fps bullets did when they "tumbled", but more consistant.
They use the same basic slug design in their 7.62X54 "sniper grade" bullets.
The ballistics tests that I've reviewed show that 77gr is worse than 62gr. In other words, either this e-mail is a hoax or else our boys went the wrong way on their choice of replacement ammo.
The 55 grain .223 has the best ballistics and kill power. Perhaps counter-intuitive, but such is life.
The same four pouches carry 8 X 20 rounds of 7.62NATO plus one in the rifle for 180 rounds.
Give the man with the 5.56mm rifle an extra 60 rounds because his rifle weighs less to give them the same "walk away" weight.
That's 450 rounds of 5.56mm versus 180 rounds of 7.62.
Given decent slugs (at least equal to the Russian 5.54mm "poison bullets") there is no reason for a torso hit with a 3,000+fps 5.56mm not to put a man down the way the old ammo did when it "tumbled" on impact.
The problem is the SS109 ammo drills those nice accurate stable knitting needle holes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now all that said, in mountain warfare, where the enemy is commonly not dug in but is hiding behind an adhoc little wall of rocks, and where logistics are following and resupply is not a problem, I'd take an M-14. Not for the better wounding, (although it's better than the SS109), not even too much for the longer range, (although no doubt it won't get blown around like any 5.56 will at longer ranges), no, I'd want the 7.62 to nail guys on the other side of mud hut walls and stacked up rock fighting positions.
Amen brudda, we invented the original "poison bullet", we just didn't call it that. We said it "tumbled".
55gr at 3250 puts a mean sting on flesh and bone, not the neat "knitting needle" wounds of the SS109.
When it first came out, the .223 M-16 had MORE stopping power than the .308 M-14, because of the bullets' tendency to flip. But the newer AP bullets are nothing more than glorified target practice ammo, when not facing armored enemies. If the Special Forces units could, I wonder if they would choose to go back to the lighter bullets.
I agree. The whole concept with the M-16 round tumbling, maiming/injuring an enemy soldier, thereby causing the enemy to devote more resources to that soldier (hey, if they are dead, the enemy won't care) sounds great on paper..
But Vietnam and Afghanistan throws that theory out the window, the enemy ain't going to care if their buddy is wounded, they are going to press on. They don't place the same value on human life that we do. Just look at how many resources we will use in order to rescue a pilot behind enemy lines or a wounded soldier in a street (not knocking that, mind you, that's one of the things that is great about this country). Most enemies we face, if they had a wounded soldier in a street or pilot behind our lines, that soldier or pilot is dead (unless we help them). Our enemies have no qualms sacrificing however many they need to accomplish their mission.
Only good solution, 7.62mm.
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.