From:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?fixtureID=inring&DeskID=national



Army Ammo
The Army recently concluded a $3 million, three-year study to find out what it was told by a group of specialists years ago: The killing power of the M-16/M-4 carbine is good for close combat.
The Army study started after some soldiers in Afghanistan claimed that the 62-grain, 5.56 mm round did not have enough stopping power to kill terrorists in close combat. The complaints appeared aimed at trying to get the Army to adopt bigger caliber guns and ammo, something the service opposes.
According to defense officials close to the study, a group of assembled specialists on the matter, including both ballistics specialists and medical doctors familiar with bullet wounds, told the Army before it started the study that the problem is not the size of the bullet but the person pulling the trigger.
The specialists concluded that disabling an enemy combatant with an M-16 is more dependent on where a shot is placed, the number of hits that are placed on target, and the level of marksmanship training of the solider. The size of the bullet and its design are less important and the standard M855 ammunition, known as "green tip" ammo is fine.
The Army study concluded almost the same thing but failed to identify one fault of its own soldiers: They need more training to be better shots.
The study proved that the complaints from some units in Afghanistan were unwarranted. "There are some special operations units that never complained because they could shoot," one official told us. For those lacking marksmanship training, "they could shoot at someone 10 times but only hit him once or twice."
"The Army is very willing to spend a lot of money on guns and ammunition, but very little on marksmanship training," the official said.

Just remember those experts are not the ones on line carring the rifle and "good enough" cartridge. Its politics that are killing the 6.8 SPC in house. Good thing I had enough freedom to run around with a NM M14, FAL or .300 Win Mag M24 to agument my M4.

CD

The military establishment has always resisted change in armament, especially handheld firearms. Seems the public sector always has to lead the way and keep insisting on upgrades.

This whole argument of the 5.56 and the 9mm as used by today's US military being adequate or best for field conditions needs to be answered by those with boots on the ground and actual firefight experiences. You can shoot all the pigs and goats you care to and anaylize the results, getting the answers you want by how the tests are conducted.

Think I'd listen to those with firsthand experience and weight the inquiry in their favor.

The military establishment has always resisted change in armament, especially handheld firearms. Seems the public sector always has to lead the way and keep insisting on upgrades.

This whole argument of the 5.56 and the 9mm as used by today's US military being adequate or best for field conditions needs to be answered by those with boots on the ground and actual firefight experiences. You can shoot all the pigs and goats you care to and anaylize the results, getting the answers you want by how the tests are conducted.

Think I'd listen to those with firsthand experience and weight the inquiry in their favor.


Kdub hit the nail on the head.

Think about it, we argue over if a 223 has enough power to kill a deer. The deer don't shoot back, terrorist do. Thats why we need to equip our soldiers with the best weapons possible.

If I was leaving today I'd want to take a M1A scout squad with plenty of 20rd mags, an 870 with extended mag tube and a G22 for a side arm.

Unfortunately we don't get to choose so we make do with the M16/M4 platform. Not a bad platform at all mind you, just could use a different caliber like the 6.8 SPC or the .308.

I agree with Combat-Diver and kdub 100%.

Also - I have not been impressed with the terminal-performance of the 5.56MM-Cartridge...
...It does-not offer what I, [-and many others that have been "operational-up-close"]-consider sufficient ballistics to "Dump-a-Dirt-Bag" in his tracks CONSISTENTLY...with one well placed hit in the hydraulics or vitals. I have seen some "bizzarro-ballistics" with the 5.56MM...YEAH - It will kill when it is deployed under ideal circumstances-[but so will a sewing-needle]. The main problem I see with the 5.56MM is once it meets ANY-"Resilant-Resisatnce" [read: bone, clothing-hardware, assault-type-gear or any intermediate-cover/media]-whatsoever, it deflects, and/or dramatically loses it's integrity towards it's original-trajectory...which has a great impact on both the temporary and permanent wound-channel.

- A long time ago, in a place called "Quantico" I was fortunate to be educated and exposed to a considerable amount of research and development in both the 5.56 and 7.62 calibers, and the weapons they are deployed from. I have seen both 5.56 and 7.62 wound channels under "other-than-ideal" combat and/or field conditions, and seen the "terminal-effects" of both.

- This is what have been taught:
...There are two-factors that must be met for any projectile in regards to this quest for "Stopping-Power"...
[1] - Is SHOT-PLACEMENT.
[2] - and the other is PENETRATION.

Shot-Placement is a "Operator/Marksman-Issue"...
...PENETRATION thru vitals and the CNS is a Projectile/Ballistics-Issue.

- This is what I know:
...The 5.56MM is high on the "perforation-scale" because of it's shape and velocity...but low on the PENETRATION-issue because if it's design and weight. The .308/7.62 seems to be the right combination of velocity and weight to not only perforate...but PUNCH-thru and penetrate on, or close to it's ORIGINAL-PATH/POA-POI.

I was taught by a very expereinced and battle-seasoned Colonel that one should first pick the cartridge/projectile that one want's to dispatch....and then figure out the best way to launch-it. Obviously the "bean-counters" and "politicians" missed that period of instuction...otherwise we wouldn't be carrying a ".22-Cal-Carbine" into combat with a "Beretta-as-a-backup"...hence what Com-DVR-said regarding politics.

- I have seen combatants shot thru major-vital-areas from a 5.56MM live long enough to be interogatted, or make a cell-phone call...or-jump a wall and pump-out over a 100M-sprint...or get up and ride off on a motorcycle to collapse later...or fire an RPG, or pull the pin on a grenade. Those that I have seen "shot-proper" with a 7.62, are usually "de-animated" or "dead-on-their-feet" right where they were hit...or a few steps from the impact-point.

- The reason[s]s that Marines and Soldiers carry a 5.56MM are not related to marksmanship or "stopping-power"...more like "UN/US-Logistics and Politics"...and- There is a reason that LE/Military Designated-Marksman, Counter-Snipers...and Snipers favor the 7.62...in either the M14-or-Bolt-Gun format...and it's not logistics or politics...it's performance.

- It's all about the PLACEMENT and PENETRATION.

...OK - I'm getting down off my podium-now.

Just remember those experts are not the ones on line carring the rifle and "good enough" cartridge. CD

Exactly! I carried a M-4 in Afghanistan. With the CCO, I found it to be a sweet shooter and adeqaute up to 200yd. Probelm is, you could easily have 600yd engagements at any time. It would really suck to have a haji with a 7.62 Russian sniper rifle or PK machine gun popping at you at 400+ yards if you only had an M-4. That fortunately didn't happen to me, but a lot of our engagements in AFG are at extended ranges. The heavy bullet 5.56 at M-4 velocities just doesn't cut is at long range. Pure and simple. And it was all we had.

Also, the army study apparently didn't take into account the amphetamine laced fighters our guys faced in Fallujha Iraq either. Much like the tribesmen in the Phillipines we fought a century back, they needed serious medicine like the .30 cal rifle or a .45 to put down these nuts down. Thank god our grandfathers had .30-06s in the Pacific in WWII. Of course that was back when we fought with total war conviction, rather than with political correctness!

You guys have some great points and I'm in agreement with that after my experience in Iraq. I'll take the 7.62 with fewer rounds over the 5.56 anyday. I was a while back going to get an M4 myself but I'm holding out and getting one in at least the 6.8 SPC. Also consider the 5.56 is a 22 caliber FMJ. It's not like it's an expanding hunting or varmint bullet. I think that hamstrings it even more. Maybe they should put us on the board to make these decisions. Wait we have common sense and actual field experience with them.

Geeze, it's kinda funny how it's so easy to blame the shooter but in the same breath say that it's their lack of ability to put multiple rounds on target.... Now pardon me for saying the obvious but if one round did what it was supposed to, there would not be a need for additional rounds...would there?

Combat is a funny thing, the enemy keeps moving around and hiding behind things instead of standing perfectly still out in the open like those big target boards.

Does not matter if the enemy is 6 feet away or 600 yards away, one round placed into their body should have the capability of disabling them at least to the point where if they do move they ain't getting far.

Before we get into it again that "typical combat range is 200m or less".....maybe true for "typical" but that does not do our men any good when they encounter things that are not quite so "typical". Ya, like that would ever happen in war???? NOT!

Matt said, "Think about it, we argue over if a 223 has enough power to kill a deer. The deer don't shoot back, terrorist do. Thats why we need to equip our soldiers with the best weapons possible."

Bird Dog said, "Thank god our grandfathers had .30-06s in the Pacific in WWII. Of course that was back when we fought with total war conviction, rather than with political correctness!"

I think these two statements sum it all up in a nutshell. What everyone bypasses is that the M16 came about from politics, not because it was better than what we already had. It did NOT work and the politicians continued to throw money at it until it sort-of worked somewhat.

I make no bones about it, I hold no positive feelings for the M16 or any of it's varients. Sure, I'll give them credit for being accurate but not when it comes with the price of being so suseptable to problems. Yep, there are a lot of people out there who swear up and down the M16 is perfect...I'm one of them who is not afraid to say it sucks. I'll gladly tote a big ole heavy M14 anyday because if it all goes south in a bad way, at least you got one heck of an iron reinforced club you need not be afraid of taking a roundhouse butt swing with.

Personally, I'll give up a little on accuracy and have a more reliable weapon for those "typical" combat conditions that don't quite follow the "textbook" as the civilian and military politicians seem to think they should!

Thx Mark.

The problem is the M-4 is an adequate weapon for some missions. But is far from the "best" weapon we can go into a fight with. If you're going to travel 8,000 miles from home, leaving your family behind and putting your butt on the line, a country with our resources and history (virtually inventing rifled bores and repeating arm), should provide us with the best. Not just adequate!

Mark you raise some good points esp about the targets moving and hiding. That emphasizes even more to me why they need a larger caliber as you aren't always going to get the ideal shot placement. Marginal hits with a 6.8 or 7.62 are going to be more effective than one with a 5.56 bullet. I've seen hits with the 5.56's in the torso that they kept running to cover, it didn't even put them down! Then they'd still pop rounds at you. I've also seen ones with the 7.62's and they go down much more reliably. I never saw a torso hit with a 7.62 where they didn't go down. Not every soldier is a great shot and more range time would definately help, but that's not always feasible. But I think there's a little more room for error with the 6.8 SPC or 7.62 with less than ideal hits. I think if they could use an expanding bullet it would be more effective but they can't. So I believe they should cash in on the billions given to Iraq and have them help foot the bill for new uppers to 6.8 SPC for our military.

Politics is the sole reason that Russia went to the 5.45x39 They figured we had one up on them and the political officers forced their munitions design to follow suit. Do a little reading on what they went through trying to get a bullet that sort-of worked for disabling humans but was about useless under anything less than ideal conditions. The US military did the same exact thing! Pressure from the political powers to make the 5.56 work somewhat is what got us where we are now.

The Russian munitions people told the political system the 7.62x39 would be fine, just do the simple spring changes and bring it back up to the full power is was designed to have. Would have required very little retooling and very little cost. Instead they chose to go for complete new tooling and weapons resulting in who knows how much wasted time and money to end with something barely acceptable.

The Sturmgewehr 7.92x33 Kurtz was the leading factor in going smaller but "without" loosing effectiveness...that's the fact everyone seemed to miss out on. Korovin from Russia was the first to really take the bullpup idea to task with any seriousness. The whole basis of the bullpup was not to provide an oversized pistol as has been the common application since but rather to shrink a full size rifle into a more compact combat friendly package.

The seemingly endless love of "carbines" by the powers to be also played into the cancerous erosion of infantry armament. A few people, mostly those with the "been there, done that" experience, did push for the higher power rounds in a smaller package. Mikhail Kalashnikov is no exception to the "been there, done that" club. Most often totally ignored is the fact that his 7.62x39 cartridge and the rifle it was chambered in was not originally as it appears today. The round was loaded a lot hotter with a heavier bullet. Working with a brain fart here so bear with me if memory does not serve me well... the original bullet was supposed to weigh like 139gr and be running in the 2500 fps range. Not excessive but highly functional. Along comes the political officers who decide that if the round is toned down to use a lighter bullet and less powder, the rifle too can be toned down to require less machining and less materials thus equating to being able to make more of everything.

Another big point missed by many military leaders is that not every man is a rifleman and not every rifle need be capable of sniper work. What this boils down to is a complete lack of logistical management. All one need do is look back in history and see what happened when and it all comes together. The basic grunt in WWII was carrying the M1 powerhouse and plenty accurate enough to engage targets at 500 yards or more without a whole lot of problem. Fine for some battles but when put into the urban environment, the limited number tommy guns and M1 carbines took the lead however these two proved to be useless in the wide open fields where the Garand really shined.

This one gun, one round theory our military is trying to operate on is complete BS brough on by politicians and bean counters....end result is our men coming home in body bags. Lean manufacutring is what the civilian market calls it, the military likes using the terms "strike force" and "precision" yet the end result is the same... companies end up being slaves to shipping and farming out of work choosing to rely on someone else to cover their @sses and one glitch and the company finds itself sucking wind in a heartbeat. Applied to the military, this "lean" system results in us sending our sons to the grave!

The Russians are not a prime example of military actions but if you look solely at the up front deployments, they have the basic concept even if they lack the ability to deploy it properly. Your primary force is infantry equipped with AK's for the mass firepower up close and personal work. These generic grunts are backed up by a decent number of "squad" types with more training carrying the SVD's which are capable handling the longer range work and also punching through some barriers. Lesser in number but present nonetheless are the snipers who can effectivel lay down the long range fire. The idea is to have all these people supporting each other making for a truely effective fighting force that has planned for the "typical combat experience".

With all the above in mind...why can we not come to a common ground where everyone can be happy and our men stand a better chance of not giving their life for their country? Back to the bullpup design. Small, easily moved in tight quarters, lends itself very well to working behind cover since the biggest parts are closest to the shooter. Barrel is of rifle length which means you don't give up performance from a more powerful round that is capable of making one shot knockdowns/kills in less than ideal conditions. Now you have a small rifle, not a carbine. It will handle like a carbine but but not be range limited as the carbine is. It fills the two rolls of basic infantry yet is still effective enough at 300+ yards if need be to keep your t*t out of the ringer. Add in the mix of additional squad folks with decent rifles capable of working the 300+ yard ranges with heavy firepower...optically sighted auto rifles where target engagement need not be precise but effective. By this I mean it is not necessary for one to expect head shots from these weapons but the capability of having 20 rounds at the ready and an optical sight that allows you to put rounds in the area of the target with ease for a general body mass hit as opposed to a true sniper shot. At ranges like that, one can effectively have several rounds in the air before the target even knows he's being engaged. By the time the target figures out what's happening, chances are one of the bullets is going to take him down. On the other hand, these squad shooters could lay down highly effective concentrated fire at long range that even if it is not truely effective against a hardened target, it's enough to keep the enemy from sicking their heads out or moving around with our fear of being whacked.

Then you get the argument that the M16 will shoot better groups at 600m than the M1 or M14...fine and dandy if you're killing paper but ain't worth a dang if you're trying to kill enemy troops. Much of the problem is brought on by those who feel we need to be surgical and capture bad guys and interrogate them into telling us where the rest of the bad guys are...this ain't one-adam 12 folks and our troops need to concentrate on their main most functions:
1- Kill as many of the enemy as possible in the shortest amount of time. If they are dead, you need not fight them again.
2- Break as much of the enemy's equipment as possible and this includes churchs, hospitals, homes and schools, if they are using it, it is enemy equipment and needs to be destroyed completely!
3- There need be no second guessing of our men in the field. If they sense a threat, it must be neutralized immediately. There need not be this hosre sh%t of asking questions, if it looks bad, kill it! If it wasn't bad, it should not have been there. End of discussion!!
4- Our troops should be equipped for anything and everything...back to the "typical" combat conditions.
5- Money is way down on the list and if our success in battle is dependent on bean counters, we may as well just give up now.
6- Politicians needs to keep their noses out of it. We have generals trying to be politicians, case point Westly Clark and his political BS that caused the slaughter of our brave men for no rhyme or reason.

How many of our men were cripled or killed in the Argone forrest because Ike was playing politician instead of general and didn't let Patton do what he did best...WIN WARS!

Patton once praised the M-1 Garand as being the best hand held military rifle in the world! The 7.625 is even better in the M-14!!!

Now I don't know of any combat veterans out there, who actually spent their time shooting at enemy off 600 yards out with their iron sighted rifles.......350 yards you **** betcha!
The guys who were designated snipers yes.

Now it seems to me crupt politics has been keeping the proper military rifle caliber out of our troops hands for decades now....my humble opinion. :mad: :mad:

It is about time that those groups of people who are saying NAY to the use of a better round than our men are using now in battle, would take their heads out of their rectums for starters or be placed in the heat of battle to get some real up close facts of the pro's & con's of 5.56 caliber verses the 7.625 and it's abliity to stop enemy in its tracks with one shot, not half a clip load.

The AR15 was never intended to be a full battle rifle. The Air Force adopted it as a replacement for the M1 carbines that were standard at the time. The original rifle was quite a bit lighter than the present version. The original rifles had standard steel barrels with a 1 in 14 twist rate like the 222 Remington that the 223 was derived from. Accuracy was so-so with a new barrel and the 55 grain bullets. The bullet was nearly unstable with this barrel twist and did tumble when it hit flesh making a good wound. That standard steel barrel wore quickly on full auto and most of the rifles I fired with this barrel would actually tumble a bullet at 25 yards. Thats probably where the "tumbling bullet" legend came from. The twist was changed to a 1 in 12 and a stellite liner was put into the chamber which ran up into the rifling a ways. This slowed down the erosion in the lead. Later barrels were chrome lined. The more stable 55 grain bullet did not have the tumbling effect unless it hit bone. I believe the Army got involved with the M16 for a couple of reasons. The first is the new tactics which were thought to be more effective against ambush at close range, a problem in RVN. When hit with an ambush, troops were supposed to empty a magazine in a "zone of fire" that each member took on. The theory was that fire superiority would be gained by keeping the enemys heads down from all that auto fire. It didnt work. Using these tactics required a full auto gun and a lot of ammo, something the M14 couldnt do. Secondly, the average trooper could not hit nearly as well with a M14 than the lighter M16. My basic company was one of the last units to use the M14 for training. The qualification course required hitting 30 out of 84 pop up targets at ranges up to 350 meters. Fully half of my company failed. I know this is a training issue but a hit with a 223 is better than a miss with a 308. Remember that at the time we were training mass numbers of people some of which had never fired a BB gun. We should have gone back to a full battle rifle after RVN. I think a lightened version of the M14 in 260 Remington with a 120 grain bullet would serve well. Hopefully we will get something similar.

Ah, brings back memories of slogging around with a slung rifle and heavy steel pot!

Was released from service prior to the intro of the M14, let alone the M16, so I can't say much about these firearms, other than at one time I owned a pristine M14 and found it adequate, but not in the same league with the M1 carried for so long in service as far as accuracy. Firepower with the 20 round mag was another story.

In my day, ACCURACY was the key training point. We shot bullseye targets clear out to 1,000 yds and had to qualify with some minimum score (forgotten what). The M1 was easy to zero and 6 o'clock holds were taught. Don't know how practical this was, because most of us used center-of-body-mass as an aiming point, anyway.

The M1 was a heavy, long and awkward rifle to carry or handle in brush. The telltale "Kling" of the empty enbloc clip being ejected was as much benefit to the enemy as the shooter. It has lots of pieces to be disassembled and cleaned, but was very reliable. Our basic ammo load was 10 clip loads of 8 cartridges. Compared to the basic load for the M14 and M16, this wasn't much, but the insistance of aimed fire, rather than "spray and pray" meant the ammo went just as far. Don't think anyone will argue the point of the effectiveness of the 30-06 cartridge.

Later was issued an M2 carbine and thought it to be the most wonderful firearm made after lugging the M1 around so long. Even later was issued a M3 "grease gun". Didn't like it near as much as the carbine, as loaded it weighed nearly as much as the M1 and the accuracy was zilch.

My personal view is in line with Ironhead - something in the order of a 6.5, 6.8 caliber based on the .308 Win case would be a most ideal cartridge for our military. Then, get rid of that stupid 9mm handgun and get something in the order of the .40 S&W or even back to the good ol' .45 ACP.

Geeze, kinda sounds like the majority want something along the lines of the 6.5x55......imagine that! LOL Re-inventing the wheel?

First Mark I don't think M-16s are more accurate at 600yds than 14s or M-1s. Maybe due to recoil, some folks shoot them better. That would make sense I guess.

As a military officer with combat experience, I can tell you the biggest dis-service that has come about from the 5.56, isn't the M-16/M-4. It is the fact that in order to have common ammo, the the squads have gone away from the M-60/M-240 machine gun (7.62), and now are stuck with SAW (5.56). This weapon isn't significantly lighter than the M-60. It's ability to put significant, lethal, battle winning firepower down range onto targets sucks compared to the 7.62. This is all so we can carry and supply one type of ammo. Problem is, that ammo is weak (as we have been discussing). There was nothing wrong with the machine gunner and his Asst gunner carrying 7.62 and each squad member also carrying one or two belts in his ruck. It worked great and won wars. Now we have a pip squeak machine gun in Infantry squads.

Compared to the PK machine gun (7.62 Russian - .30-06 ballistics) and the M-60, the M249 SAW sucks. I know, I have a lot of first hand experience with all three. But now we have singular ammo. Oh boy, let's all join hands and sign kum-bai-ah! We don't win wars now, we manage them.

Ya know - you just CAN'T improve on perfection! :p

Bird Dog, I'm with you! :D

The saw is fine if you're getting attacked by a band of enraged chipmunks or squirrels but for anything else, your "sucks" term is quite fitting.

I'm also with you on the accuracy as well. I've shot both the M16 and M14 back to back on the same day and scored higher with the M14. The argument I always get in favor of the M16 is "its superior accuracy"....

If recoil is such a great concern, why did we not take a serious look at the FN-FAL? Field adjustable gas mechanism that seriously reduces recoil w/o any major losses on cartridge performance. Likewise, if you did happen to get a bad batch of ammo, you can crank the gas system vent down and the rifle will still work. Combine this with the bullpup style and you got yourself a decent all around rifle that handles like a carbine yet has the power of the .308

Thank you for your service to our country!

You guys want bigger bullets, put your head down and scream for your F.O. Nothing you've been talking about does it quite like a battery 4 rounds of 105.

You guys want bigger bullets, put your head down and scream for your F.O. Nothing you've been talking about does it quite like a battery 4 rounds of 105.

Except there is no FA in Afghanistan. You may get some fast movers if your lucky, but mainly it's you, your M-4 carbine, and your Afghan National Army friends (which can be good or bad, depending on which tribe they are from and who your are fighting).

Ya, the SAW is a fun gun to shoot on the range, but leave it at home for combat duty. I'll take a 240B any day.