[The Silver Bullet 1719]

Hey everybody,

I just got an email from my brother-in-law in Iraq. Hes a Master Sergent X-Ray tech in a field hospital in Iraq. Anyways, I asked him how the M-16s, and M4s are performing in Iraq both mechanically and physically, and I thought yall would like to know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trust me, I have seen the physical affects of all three the M-16, M-4 and the Ak-47. Throw all those things you read away. THe 7.62 is still the deadlestt round within 200m, trust me it will rip flesh and bone right out of your body,, I have seen it first hand. THe M4 has alot to be said, it is a good weopon within 150m mostly because of it's small size so for close quarters it is perfect but alot of the guy say, and I have seen it, for myself, it does not have the stopping power needed in combat. Especially at distances gereater then 150m. Some of the guys have even picked up[ AK47s to use and just sling thier M4 over thier back. It;s like shooting a .22!!!! As for the regular M16 you get the distance because of the longer barrel, some of the guys here have added Scopes to thier standard M16 and have been hitting guys out at 500m in the head with no problem. And as for how either t! he M4 and M16 are doing. Well like in every conflict since they were invented! Clean it Clean It Clean it Clean it Clean it! If not it WILL jam at the worse time! It WILL JAM! And dont' leave your magazines loaded with a full 30rds, springs get really weak, especially in these high temps over here. And then they wont feed correctly! The AK47 of course hasnt had this problem. Oh course the enemy has the better WEAPON!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is not a AR\AK flame war thread, I'm only posting this to people who would like to know first-hand knowlege about the M16 and M4's performance in Iraq.

[4v50 Gary]

I wonder if its the lubricant? Better a dry lube or no lube for desert warfare. Thanks for the post.

[capt_happypants]

The M4/M855 combo has awful terminal performance past 150 yards, and that's due to the low velocity imparted by a 14.5" bbl. This is not a new item, AARs from Afghanistan also cited the same problems. Strangely enough, soldiers shooting M16A2s and M249s did not report the same issues.

Some units are experimenting with Open-Tip Match (OTM) bullets in 75, 77, 80 and 100 grain. Early testing suggests that heavy OTM bullets have excellent terminal performance and may be able to extend the lethal range of the M4 carbine.

Check out the pics at www.ammo-oracle.com

I've seen recommendations for Militec and a dry graphite lube for desert ops. CLP is a definite no-no in the sandbox.

[bad_dad_brad]

Well, all I can say is that I just bought a SAR-1 AK a few weeks ago. For accuracy an AR-15 derivative can not be beat. But you need at least 16 honest inches of barrel to make the .223 work properly to kill. The M4 is fine within 100 yards but then . . .

On the maintenance side of things, the AK has is it all over the AR. If I had to go back into the stone age, the AK would follow me (and a bunch of Glocks as well). I love my AR, but she is high maintenance, albeit, easy to clean, but you still have to attend to her. All you have to do with an AK is dip her in water on occasion, dry, and spray with CLP, and she will work. Heck you probably don't even have to do that.

The AR is perfection under ideal conditions. The AK always seems to work no matter what.

[Sir Galahad]

Read my tagline. That's why there are millions and millions of satisfied customers, myself included.:D

[4v50 Gary]

Sir Galahad - are there also millions upon millions of dead end users too?

[dave3006]

I almost hurt myself laughing when I heard the oil excuse the first time. I love it when the AR lovers attempt to defend their fragile, finiky weapon by claiming the gun has the wrong flavor of oil!! It is a bad design for a weapon of war. Period. It can not deal with the simple reality that war is dirty. Any weapon or plan that needs ideal conditions is flawed.

Check out the following conversation that will never happen:

Habib: Hey Omar. What weight oil are you using this month in your AK47? Your gun keeps jamming and we need to kill those evil American dogs?

Omar: Allah be praised. It is a special blend only known to the great prophet himself. I think we need a second opinion. We must kill the great satan. How can we do this if our AK47s won't cycle?

Habib: Ah. I have revelation and many questions. Are you using G.I. or aftermarket mags? What color are the followers? Are the feed lips bent? You are not using Wolf ammo are you?

Omar: Since my youth, I have always been faithful do these things and to make sure I have staggered the gas rings in my AK bolt and clean the locking lugs well.

Habib: If only we had the foolproof and stone cold reliable M16, we would have none of these problems and we would triumph in the mother of all battles. We will have to make do with these tempermental AK47s. Paradise awaits us.

[Jeff White]

Thanks for posting that. Remember that it is an anecdotal observation from a non-combat arms soldier.

7.62x39 has relatively poor terminal effects compared to either M855 or M193. Against MK262 mod 1 it can't even begin to compare. The official reports I have seen, done with some kind of scientific methodolgy by people from the Combat Development Branch at the US Army Infantry School don't say the same thing your BIL does. Actually it sounds very similar to the things I heard at the range and in the barracks in a 29 year Army career (Infantry and Artillery). These same things have been going around since before I enlisted in 1974. This will be another piece of proof positive evidence that we have carried the wrong firearm for the last 40 years to those who want to believe they are right and we should still carry the M14 or the M1 or maybe even the Brown Bess.

My personal experience is that almost everyone of these experts I have met has no more Infantry experience then carrying their M1A or AK from the trunk of their car to the firing line at the range, usually a distance of around 100 meters.

There are plenty of people here who have used the M16 in combat as an Infantry soldier who will not complain about the design at all.

Jeff

[Dave R]

Thanks a lot, Dave. You made me spew my drink.

[Sir Galahad]

Hy, Jeff. I used to repair the thing. Does my opinion count?:rolleyes: (MOS 45B Small Arms repair.) The M-16A1 was pathetic, truthfully. Never got to repair A2s so I can't fully comment on them.

4v50Gary, now I'm going to be politically incorrect here. There are LOTS more dead because of AKs than the holders of AKs. Wherever and whenever the SHTF around the globe, the AK is there. Can't say that for the M-16. Well, maybe now that the U.S. is making the SHTF, but in Iraq since the "victory", they're almost having a tie. They kill a couple of ours, we kill a couple of thiers, and so forth. AK seems pretty darn effective in Iraq right now. And for every AK that U.S. troops find, there are at least a thousand they won't find. Forget NBC weapons, the buried tons of RPGs and AKs and ammo are enough to keep the whole region happy as clams blowing away American troops and fading into the populace again for ten years. But it's not a "guerilla war" according to the esteemed high command, so it must really just be a particularly rough game of full-contact Candyland.

Dave3006, LOL!!! That's hilarious!

[natedog]

Funny Dave, real mature. Making snide remarks about others religion is really the way to go on The HIGHroad...

[tac17]

Oh course the enemy has the better WEAPON!"

That's a joke right?

[HBK]

ARs are inferior to AKs. Hopefully the H&Ks the military gets in a couple of years will be better.

[Jeff White]

Sir Galahad,

Of course your opinion counts. What was so pathetic about the A1? I used one for most of my career. How many repairs did you make because of a design flaw in the weapon and how many were made because soldiers tend to abuse their rifles? You know what I'm talking about, shooting cleaning rod sections using M200 blanks as propellent, using their rifles as prybars, kicking them around on the floor of vehicles, firing ball ammuntion with BFAs mounted, disassembling the lower receiver group and then putting it together wrong (as a 45B you know that you were the only person authorized to do that), cleaning them with carburator cleaner or soap and hot water the list of abuses is endless.

Let's see, the biggest MWO I can remember on the M16A1 from 1974 on was when they increased the strength of the extractor spring and ID'd the new on with the blue plastic insert.

On the wall behind my monitor is a picture of some soldiers from the Honduran Army that I helped train in 1990. They were from the Sexto (6th) Bn, 110th Brigade. They had the worst looking M16A1s I ever saw. Most of the finish was worn off, dust covers were missing or flapping in the breese because the springs were broke. Some of them were corroded almost all the way through the aluminum of the lower receiver in front of the magazine well, where they liked to hold them. Furniture was held together with duct tape. But they worked, every time. Hardly the unreliable, maintenance intensive nightmares all the experts here on the internet and in the popular gun press make them out to be.....

I'm interested in your what you saw as a 45 bravo that convinced you the A1 was unsuitable for use.

Jeff

[EchoSixMike]

Jeff, it's a lost cause. The only way these guys will ever be convinced is to be forced to use that POS AK as their issue weapon for several monthes of combat. IMO, just carring a basic load of those magazines(aka field expedient framing hammers) will cause some of these guys to go Tango Uniform.

Just remember folks, the USSR copied us with the AK 74. We didn't go back to big slow bullets that don't fragment(AK47 style).

Yeah, we're taking a few casualties in Iraq. We're also nabbing a bunch of the BG's. If you guys(and the rest of the wimps) can hold off the wimpering and show a little spine for few more weeks, it'll be over for longer than the ten years since the last war. When did Americans turn into such wimps? Is this the same nation that lost nearly ten thousand men on one day in WWII? It sure as Hell doesn't look like it. Semper Fidelis....Ken M

[Blackhawk 6]

Jeff,

I was going to address the issue, but I read you first post. You were more tactful than I would have been. Both of your posts are dead on.

[dave3006]

Natedog, before America became a feminized, politically correct land of socialism, we told all sorts of jokes. Polish jokes, Italian jokes... you name it. We were tough enough to take it then. I keep forgeting we are a nation of crybabies now. Don't worry, the towelheads can take a few jokes. It won't kill them (at least not like their planes killed us on 9/11).

[Citadel99]

FWIW my best friend who recently returned from Iraq can not say enough good things about the M4. He was a BMO for 2-69 Armor--the unit that was at the front of the 3ID surge through Iraq. Usually up at the front lines in an un-armored humvee with the doors removed for easier shooting he used his M4 regularly. He never had a jam and towards the end of the run to Baghdad didn't have time to clean it properly. I'll have full confidence in mine when I get to Bragg in Feb.

Mark

[Ed]

You know, Carried M16 A1, A2 and was in one of the first units issued M4s. I thought the a1 was more accurate to me at least. M4 was good for us in artillery cause in a track you don't have all that much room, and much better than the M9. Has anyone ever thought about the fact that when we go into these "warzones" we are usually going into a country where people have spent their whole lives fighting and killing? They have to to stay alive...if they don't learn to use and respect whatever weapon they use then they will die. Our troops, of whom I was one, are for the most part young, and most likely didn't grow up in a warzone. They are trained to the best of our ability and sent off to fight. They are thrust brand new into a life or death situation. They will learn to clean their weapons and make it work if they want to live. I say most are young because the avg soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq right now is probably in their early 20's or late teens. No matter how hard you train, its always the mentality that you can be home in a few days or call home at night, People do take cell phones to the field, and you know its not really life or death because its miles. Well people will learn if they want to live they will do what they have to do. Sorry about the rant. I just feel like it's not the weapons fault. If the Iraqis had had M16s or any other weapon instead of the
AK 47 in their desert for 30 years, they would not be failing them either because they were used to it.

[Sir Galahad]

Echo Six Mike: I see. So, rather than provide factual information that backs up the military and government insistance that we are not in a "guerilla war, it's safer just to dismiss people that state the obvious as "wimps". Sure, we're taking a few casualties, so what right? ("Well, I'm not saying we won't get our hair messed up!"---Dr. Strangelove) So, Echo, before you start throwing the word "wimp" around profligately, how about using facts instead to back up your argument?

Jeff, first off, the A1 was a barrel-eating monster. Thing went through barrels like crap through a goose. Auto fire was the usual reason if it was sustained. Then the heat usually "welded" the barrel nut to the aluminum upper receiver because of the two dissimilar materials having a tendency to do this anyways. So, to replace the barrel almost always resulted in replacing the upper receiver. Then the gas tube had to be "just so" in alignment or weapon would not work because bolt carrier assy key (forget the actual nomenclature for that piece; been over thirteen years ago now) would not fit over gas tube. Many times, the barrel nut had to be backed off a smidge from tight to make gas tube align right. I also saw several early models without forward assists stil in service. Handguards flying of during D&C. Great way to protect that thin gas tube, what with handguards that fly off when buttstock is tapped on ground. Buttstocks that break on the bayonet course. Then there was the change from a chromed bolt and carrier assy to a parked one. You couldn't mix any of these items up or a headspace issue could blow the rifle up. Barrels warping from sustained full auto fire (this was one of the big reasons for three round burst BTW; barrels cost money.) And, as you pointed out Jeff, this weapon did not take abuse to well either. The biggest complaint I got was jamming during full auto. Never could pin that down to a specific part failure. Since weapons had to be clean prior to bringing them in for maintenance, this could have ben a cleaning issue. If a weapon is not at least somewhat soldier-proof, my God...

[tac17]

ARs are inferior to AKs. Hopefully the H&Ks the military gets in a couple of years will be better.

I guess AK's are great if you don't consider it's heavy, the bolt handle is on the wrong side, it has no bolt stop, the safety sucks and accuracy is something alien to them. They do have a reliable gas system, but then again so do AR's when you cut through the crap and look at the facts. Owning both I find very little inferior about the AR, I do however find several shortcomings in the AK.

[BDM]

Im sick of all the M16 bashing,lets face it more AKs were made and they are cheap,the only people using them are the ones that cant afford M16s,anything in a desert with sand like talcam powder will fail if not cleaned,a good example is WW2 in north africa where .50s the M1 or BAR would fail and did if not cleaned,this attitude some people have toward the AR is the same attitude people who use it for real sometimes have and you wonder why the weapon fails them,because they dont understand how to maintain it,look at the 507th,they were a maintenence company and all their weapons failed not just the M16,soldiers have to learn what their weapons are and are not capable of,anything used within the specified parameters should work fine as long as you maintain it,spec ops guys who complained about stopping power in afghanistan are the same guys using the M4 with aimpoint to try and snipe at targets at 500 meters,the weapon wasnt designed for that,understanding your weapons design,stregnths and weaknesses will go a long way,my father learned the hard way in korea when he went from cold ouside to warm inside didnt wipe off the condensation then when he went bak out a few hours later his rifle froze up and he had to piss on it to get it to work,normaly not a big problem but the chineese were trying to kill him at the time,but he was a young 18 and never had such a weapon before and basic training didnt prepare him for the cold of korea when he went over,so lets stop blaming the weapon and be men and be resonsible for ourselves and our actions and cleaning our weapons so they work.

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

Jeff,

I'm not partaking in this debate, look at my sig. Yet, my bro-in-law HAS used his M16 in Somailia and in Iraq (has been ambushed several times since hes be in Iraq) so I think he can say something about the weapon's stopping power. He may not be 11B, but he's used his M16A2 for its purpose.

As far as the AR\AK debate, they both have their pluses and minuses.

[Sgt]

Well, here's my two cents....some on topic, some off.

Sir Galahad: While I respect your knowledge of the M-16, I still think it's a good weapon. I know they were abused, the one I was issued in bootcamp was a total piece of junk, but I still managed to fire Expert with it, loose handguards and all. I never understood the full-auto deal anyway...yeah it's fun, as long as Uncle Sam was buying the ammo, but I couldn't hit squat in that mode. It's no wonder you have the opinion you do, since you were required to fix them. It's been my experience, that if you really want to know about a car, you ask a mechanic who works on them...I'd say the same applies to firearms. Ask me about Marine Helicopters and I'll have an opinion too. :D

Dave 3006: Thanks for the cute story and for reminding us all that political correctness sucks!

Natedog: Come on man, get a sense of humor ;)

Citadel99: How the heck are ya? Glad to hear some folks like their M4's and really hope yours serves you well....Take Care at Bragg !

Semper Fi, Sgt

[Keith]

Is there a single person here that would recommend hunters use a FMJ .223 to hunt deer?

No? Why not?

How about a FMJ in .308? Would that be a better choice?

Yes? How come?

Keith

[daniel501]

The terminal ballistics of 55gr .223 in FMJ are well documented. I think the case could be made that if you're going to hunt deer with a .223, then FMJ is at least as good as the alternative bullet types, in spite of the fact that it goes against conventional wisdom and hunting regs in some places.

In .308 there are an assortment of better alternatives to FMJ, and no-one would recommend FMJ for hunting.

All that said, no one would dispute that .308 FMJ is better suited for deer hunting than .223 of any variety.

(Anecdotal data point: FWIW, I took one small whitetail with Remington "powerpoint" pointed softpoint 55gr .223 at about 90 yards. It hit the lungs, and the deer moved about 15 yards and collapsed. )

[Sgt]

Keith, In order.....

No, I would not.....and besides, it's not legal to use .223 on deer here in the land of fruits and nuts.

And no again on FMJ in .308. Yes if I was starving and that's all I had, but soft points just hit harder and do more damage, thus dropping the animal faster.

And in regards to daniel501's comments: A .22LR will drop a deer if the shot placement is perfect, but that doesn't mean you should do it.

Use enough gun and good ammo, there's nothing worse than wounding an animal and wasting meat because it ran 5 miles before it died and you can't find it.

Semper Fi, Sgt

[Mannlicher]

this differs from what I read from more credible sources.

[tac17]

this differs from what I read from more credible sources.

Well I wasn't going to say it but I was thinking it. :D

[Keith]

I didn't ask if FMJ was better or worse than soft points for terminal effect on deer.

I asked people to choose between a .223 and .308 FMJ's, on the assumption that this was all you could use.

So, you must use one or the other; which will you choose - and why?


Keith

[Keith]

All that said, no one would dispute that .308 FMJ is better suited for deer hunting than .223 of any variety.

Well, I certainly wouldn't dispute that!

Now, you must go into combat against humans who weigh about the same as a deer. Will you choose a .308 or .223 FMJ?

Keith

[tac17]

Personally I would take the 5.56 FMJ, the balistics of the 5.56 are more or less equal to the 7.62X51 at the ranges that matter. I don't think the extra weight of the 7.62X51 is justified.

[Keith]

the balistics of the 5.56 are more or less equal to the 7.62X51 at the ranges that matter.

Then defend the statement. How many foot pounds of energy, how much penetration, how big a hole is made, etc, by the two rounds.

Keith

[seeker_two]

Is there a single person here that would recommend hunters use a FMJ .223 to hunt deer?

I've seen deer fall to .22lr & .22mag rifles. But I wouldn't recommend them for combat... :rolleyes:

The big problem is: what does a soldier need to successfully complete a combat mission?

In Vietnam & Central America, the .223 was great b/c the ranges were short. So was the .30 Carbine.

In the Middle East, the .308 does better b/c the ranges are longer.

What we need is a cartridge that is lightweight, accurate, powerful enough to engage at 300+ yards when necessary, but easy to control in full-auto when the ranges are close.

I nominate the .243 Winchester... :D

[tac17]

http://www.steyrscout.org/terminal.htm is the link where a lot of the following is coming from.

http://www.geocities.com/prometheus_22/wound1.gif
This profile is the M855 5.56mm NATO cartridge, with a 62gr steel core FMJ boat tailed bullet @ 3035 f/s. This is a classic fragmenting rifle bullet profile. Penetration is acceptable at 34cm (13.4"). Note the long narrow neck of about 9 cm (4") before the bullet tumbles and fragments. The original M193 55gr round produces a similar profile but it has a longer neck, and slightly smaller temporary and permanent cavities. Both of these bullets fracture at the cannelure at velocities above about 2700 f/s. Below that velocity the bullets simply tumble without producing the extensive permanent cavity much like the 7.62 mm M80 ball round.
http://www.geocities.com/prometheus_22/m80.jpg
This profile is the M80 7.62mm NATO cartridge, a 149gr FMJ boat tailed bullet at 2730 f/s. This is a classic FMJ military bullet profile for modern non-fragmenting / non-expanding spitzer bullets. The bullet ends up base first at a penetration of 25.6". The permanent cavity is flat in cross-section. Note the long neck before the bullet starts to tumble, but in this case at only 2700 f/s and with its heavy jacket the bullet doesn't fragment. Interestingly, if this bullet is driven at 3000 f/s it fragments and behaves just like the M855 5.56mm bullet. Have you noticed the trend for FMJ spitzer flat base/spitzer BT bullets that do not fragment to end up base first?


My thoughts on the subject are that you do get better penetration from the 7.62x51 round and it is more effective at going through cover, but the wound of the 5.56 is actually more severe when it is still at a velocity to fragment. Generally fragmentation occurs at 150 yards and under but when the 5.56 is loaded with heavier bullets fragmentation can still be seen at upwards of 300 yards. Which was the range that I was initialy refering to. Of course once you are past the point of fragmentation you are left with a .22 caliber wound for the most part. So when I consider that a 7.62 Nato bullet is as heavy as an entire round of 5.56 I just can't really justify the extra weight.

[tac17]

I nominate the .243 Winchester
Hasn't there been talk of doing something along those lines recently? It might make a nice rifle. :D

[daniel501]

Well, the answer will always be "it depends."

If I'm in a trench, and I have one shot to make at 200 yards, and sitting there by my side are two rifles of nominally equal accuracy, well sure I'm going to pick up the 7.62x51 every time.

If I've got to carry that rifle many miles through the jungle, and carry all my gear and ammo with me with scant chance of resupply, then 5.56 is the obvious choice.

[MLC]

Is it possible that some of the 7.62 wounds that this gentleman is seeing are caused by fire from a PKM 7.62x54? Also, Iraquis have access to more firearms than we do so perhaps there are a few G3's(Iran used alot of them against Iraq) and FAL about?

[Sir Galahad]

Well, having grad-ee-ated from U.S. Army Ordnance School and seen all the crap on display at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, I'd just like to make this comment: Army Ordnance R&D is like a dirty diaper. They're full of **** and always need changing. These clods could take something that works perfectly and decide it needs to do something stupid and make a design flaw, er, design change that makes a total POS out of the whole thing. Asking THEM to design a new rifle is asking for a rifle that weighs 20 pounds, launches grenades, has a camera (whatzzis for--instant replay video of the guy you shot?), can look around corners, sings lullabyes, but cannot do efficiently one thing: shoot rifle bullets. This is how the army was using crap-in-a-bag for rations for years until decent MREs came out. A sparrow would go hungry on a first-gen NRE. And a dog wouldn't eat those dehydrated pork and beef patties. If I have to have a rifle, it certainly won't be anything those imbeciles have had their sticky little fingers into. Maybe there's something to be said for Soviet motivational techniques: "Yes, the rifle had BETTER work. And be all you said it is. Or we shoot you and find someone else to build it."

[BDM]

Thats what they told the guy who designed the T34,and that turned out to be a very good tank the first time it rolled off the assembly line except here in america you have to tell them"well cut off your funding,and with your PHD youll have to work in mcdonalds because you wont work here"and watch how fast they stop dragging their ??? and get it right the first time.:D

[Sgt]

Originally posted by Mannlicher:
this differs from what I read from more credible sources.
What differs?

Originally posted by Keith:
I didn't ask if FMJ was better or worse than soft points for terminal effect on deer.
You asked......"Is there a single person here that would recommend hunters use a FMJ .223 to hunt deer?" And you didn't like my answer?
I asked people to choose between a .223 and .308 FMJ's, on the assumption that this was all you could use.
You never stated that was all we could use, it seemed as if you were asking if FMJ's were a good choice.
So, you must use one or the other; which will you choose - and why?
I gave you my answers, including the "why" and then you cop an attitude? Perhaps you need to spell out exactly what you are thinking and not expect anyone to read your mind. But if it will make you happy....I would use a bleepin' rock to kill a deer, if that's all I had......but since there are so many better choices out there and you didn't present this as a SHTF scenario, I'll just stick to what I know works and save the FMJ for target practice and in case the "S" really does "HTF"...Does this adequately answer your question?

Sgt

[Sir Galahad]

Know what I use to kill deer? I run them down, nigh bare-butt in a chamois skin loincloth and tear out their jugulars with my teeth. My teeth, to the best of my knowledge, are non-expanding, but I'd need a mirror to verify that. I understand that some people who eat certain mushrooms (you know, psychedelic portobellos) and look into mirrors claim their teeth expand, but I don't know at what FPS this happens at. My teeth are FEJ---Full Enamel Jacket. They are quite effective on prime rib (you should see the tissue damage when it's a morsel lightly dipped in horseradish and au jus) and even crusty bread dipped in olive oil. Anyway, I just thought I'd share and you can purchase pictures of me with a deer windpipe hanging out of my mouth (I'm actually using it to play a spritely little piece from "Der Zieberflaute", but I don't like to brag) in the lobby.

[Sgt]

Dear/Deer Sir Galahad.......:eek: :confused: :uhoh: :rolleyes: :what: :neener: :D

[BDM]

To KEITH I say this we should all worry less about what expands,fragments, how big a hole it makes and worry more about being good and proficient with what ever rifle and ammo combo we use and how good we can hit and place those shots maybe .308 is better maybe .223 maybe FMJ maybe softpoint maybe hollow point one thing is for sure from .22 to .30 if you take it in the head or chest, lungs whatever the game is over anyway and in a SHTF scenario without medical attention a non life threatening wound can kill if not treated so Ill practice to hit first and hit true and hope I dont get hurt or killed myself while doing that wich I hope none of us will ever have to do and at the same time worry about loved ones and protecting them to,there is more important things to consider,whatever you have learn to use it well because only hits in vital areas count on animals of the two legged variety 4 legs to but they dont shoot back!!!:D

[Art Eatman]

Lord luv a duk!

:D

M16/M4. Performance. Iraq.

Art

[Keith]

I see a lot of specious reasoning here.

The one thing you should ask of a military round is that it instantly kill or incapacitate the individual you shoot with that round.

The .223 has failed again and again. Unless you get a lucky spine or head shot, the individuals shot usually continue to shoot back rather than fall dead (as is the proper thing to do under those circumstances). The .223 will not penetrate even light vehicles, much less cinder block buildings or brush screens. In Iraq, advances were held up again and again just because some knucklehead was hiding in a shack and couldn't be neutralized with rifle fire. They'd have to call in a million dollar air strike to take out someone who could have been cut to pieces with a .308 rounds. The .223 is just not a very effective combat round!

And yes, I'm sure the soldiers like the new M4's for their light weight and handiness, it's just too bad it shoots such an ineffectual round.
There's no reason a .308 battle rifle couldn't be made the same weight and length.

Keith

[tac17]

The one thing you should ask of a military round is that it instantly kill or incapacitate the individual you shoot with that round.
Then a .308 is not a very combat effective round, by your specious reasoning. There are very few places where you can hit a human and "instantly kill on incapacitate." A spine shot would only incapacitate a determined human to a degree, it would depend on where the round struck the spine as to how much he would be incapacitated. A brain shot would be grand for an instant kill on incapacitation though I hear it isn't the easiest thing to do when people are shooting at you. Everything else is going to involve them bleeding out, and it could take some time for their blood pressure to drop to a degree where they would be killed or incapacitated, barring a hit on a large artery or the heart itself. If you think that the .308 will "instantly kill or incapacitate the individual" just by the nature of his getting, shot then you are serious misinformed.

If you however can agree with the logic of only good hits count then I suppose that it is pointless for you to be complaining about the .223 isn't it? If you put them where they count, as far as the true and factual data from the field and not this guys letter home, they will do their job. :banghead:

[Keith]

Then a .308 is not a very combat effective round, by your specious reasoning. There are very few places where you can hit a human and "instantly kill on incapacitate."

A .308 has a larger diameter and triple the mass of a .223. If an individual is in a light vehicle or behind a cinder block wall (a very common scenario encountered in Iraq), you could NOT score a hit with a .223 simply because it will not penetrete a car door or a few inches of concrete. The .308 will, and that fact was commented on by observers who had soldiers armed with .308 weapons.

That larger diameter and mass also multiplies the effect of a hit on an exposed enemy. People shot with .308's are more prone to falling down and dying than people shot with .223's. To argue otherwise is... well, silly!

And hit probability is no different with a .223 than a .308. I mean, align sights with target and pull trigger - if you do that right, you score a hit no matter what the caliber of your rifle. It's all about what happens at the other end - does the bullet bounce off a car door or penetrate and score a hit? Does the hit on an exposed enemy make him mad or does it kill him?

Keith

[EchoSixMike]

And yes, I'm sure the soldiers like the new M4's for their light weight and handiness, it's just too bad it shoots such an ineffectual round.
There's no reason a .308 battle rifle couldn't be made the same weight and length.

Never heard of that thing called recoil, have you stud?

A .308 has a larger diameter and triple the mass of a .223. If an individual is in a light vehicle or behind a cinder block wall (a very common scenario encountered in Iraq), you could NOT score a hit with a .223 simply because it will not penetrete a car door or a few inches of concrete.

Have you ever shot a car door with a 223? I have and it penetrated just fine(M855, and 75gn OTM from 20" barrel, 16" would work just as well IMO) The 7.62x51 M80 works slightly better than 5.56 vs cinder block or concrete block, against cast concrete(6-8" foundations it generally doesn't work very well at all) Trying M80 vs good American reinforced concrete is a waste of time usless you have all day. By the time you dig them out, his buddies have flanked you and killed you.

Mass and energy mean very little without projectile design to utilize it. The M80 has poor projectile design from a terminal ballistics standpoint. No matter what you do, it makes a 7.62 hole that increases to bullet length when it yaws at X depth(usually fairly deep). Whereas the 5.56x45 M855 usually and now Mk262 Mod 1 almost always fragments and makes a nasty wound up close(inside about 200-250m, where 80%+ hits are made) and does more tissue damage causing more rapid incapacitiation than M80 ever does. This is FACT verified by scientific testing. Not anecdotes, not a buddies war story, not internet commando rumor, facts backed by science. If you wish to believe in voodoo internet myth based on hearsay nonsense, feel free. I choose to believe in science. It's gotten us out of the middle ages and this far and I believe it will continue to work.

BTW, what unit are you with or were with. I know where Jeff is, and I'm with Scout-sniper platoon, 2nd Bn, 24th Marines. We have a decidedly personal interest in this sort of thing, how about you? Not that all can't contribute, but we are a little more involved in the outcome. Semper Fidelis...Ken M

[Jeff White]

Keith,

If you are so sure the 7.62x51 is such a better killer, I submit this passage from Mark Bowden's book Black Hawk Down. There are numerous other examples in many other books from all conflicts. I chose this one, because the M16s detractors use another passage from the book as proof positive that the M16 and M855 round is too ineffective for combat use.

The 60 gunner knew what the old man was trying to do. DiTomasso had spread the word that Chalk Four was stuck one block northwest of their position. The old man was obviously looking for a better vantage point to shoot at Eversman and his men.

"Shoot him, shoot him," urged his assistant.

"No, watch," Nelson said. "He'll come right to us."

And, sure enough, the man with the white Afro practically walked right up to them. He ducked behind a big tree about fifty yards off, hiding from Eversman's Rangers, but oblivious to the threat off his left shoulder. He was loading a new magazine in his weapon when Nelson blasted about a dozen rounds into him. They were "slap" rounds, plastic coated titanium bullets that could penetrate armor, and he saw the rounds go right through the man, but the guy still got up, retrieved his weapon, and even got off a shot or two in Nelson's direction. The machine gunner was shocked. He shot another twelve rounds at the man, who never the less managed to crawl behind the tree. This time he didn't shoot back.

"I think you got him," said the assistant gunner.

But Nelson could still see the Afro moving behind the tree. The man was kneeling and evidently still alive. Nelson squeezed off another long burst and saw bark splintering off the bottom of the tree. The Afro slumped sideways to the street. His body quivered but he seemed to have at last expired. Nelson was surprised at how hard it was to kill a man.

I'd like to make a suggestion for all you guys who are so concerned about the state of small arms in the US military. I'd like you all to write your congress critters. No, I don't want you to advocate we adopt the M14, G3, G36, Brown Bess Musket, 30-40 Krag.....Demand that they fund ranges and ammunition so that our forces, especially those in the reserve components have adequate training. That one thing will do more to increase our soldiers and Marines effectiveness with their small arms then if we suddenly perfected Star Trek Phaser rifles. In the end, it's not so much the weapon, but the ability to use it well.

Jeff

[Keith]

Never heard of that thing called recoil, have you stud?

Umm, my twelve year old enjoys shooting my FAL. If anyone can't handle the recoil of a modest round like the .308, they should be handling a typewriter in the rear instead of a rifle in the field.

I'm with Scout-sniper platoon, 2nd Bn, 24th Marines. We have a decidedly personal interest in this sort of thing,

And what do those combat experienced snipers say about the effects of a .308 round on an enemy combatant? Is there a big movement to replace the .30 caliber rifles with .223 sniper rifles?

No? And why not?

Keith

[tac17]

That larger diameter and mass also multiplies the effect of a hit on an exposed enemy. People shot with .308's are more prone to falling down and dying than people shot with .223's. To argue otherwise is... well, silly!
Silly huh? Ever heard of a thing called physics? In this remarkable thing called physics they discuss the fact that everything has an equal and opposite reaction. Does a .308 knock you down to shoot it? I will admit I have never been knocked down by a .308 rifle in my life, I am refering to bolt guns by the way, so you can't argue that the recoil system dampens the impact. If a .308 can't knock you down when you shoot it then a .308 projectile that was fired from said weapon can't knock you down either. So it can't be the actual impact of the bullet hitting them that causes them to go to the ground. So what is the mechanism that actually causes them to, fall down and die? As I posted earlier,
A spine shot would only incapacitate a determined human to a degree, it would depend on where the round struck the spine as to how much he would be incapacitated. A brain shot would be grand for an instant kill or incapacitation though, I hear it isn't the easiest thing to do when people are shooting at you. Everything else is going to involve them bleeding out, and it could take some time for their blood pressure to drop to a degree where they would be killed or incapacitated, barring a hit on a large artery or the heart itself.
A superficial hit with either one isn't going to be that effective. So tell me why someone that was hit with a .308 in the arm would be more likely to fall down and die than someone that was hit in the arm with a .223.

Does the hit on an exposed enemy make him mad or does it kill him? That would depend on a great number of things that have little to do with which round you shot him with. It would depend a great deal on his mental state at the time of the shot. Was he upset, already adrenalized, or was he minding his own business when the shot hit? How does he think he is supposed to react when he is shot? All these things are rather important in the how effective any caliber is going to be unless you get one of those magic shots and take him out from the start. The effectiveness of any caliber is going to come down to where the shot hit and what tissues inside the body are no good anymore. I assure you that if you take a shot in the braincase or the heart at 200 yards from a .223 you aren't going to be thinking, " Boy I sure am glad he didn't hit me with a .308."

[Keith]

If a .308 can't knock you down when you shoot it then a .308 projectile that was fired from said weapon can't knock you down either

Why are you changing the subject? Did I say a .308 round would knock somebody down? Please indicate where I said this.

A superficial hit with either one isn't going to be that effective. So tell me why someone that was hit with a .308 in the arm would be more likely to fall down and die than someone that was hit in the arm with a .223.

Why are you changing the subject? Did I say that a .308 hit in the arm would cause someone to fall down and die? Please indicate where I said this.

The effectiveness of any caliber is going to come down to where the shot hit and what tissues inside the body are no good anymore.

Oh good, we are back on subject after your long rambling argument against things I never said in the first place.
A .308 round has triple the mass and 1/3 greater diameter than a .223. As such, simple physics dictates that it will penetrate deeper and make a bigger hole - meaning that more tissue is damaged. A .308 is also far more likely to penetrate any cover the enemy is hiding behind, again increasing the odds of a hit and the death of the enemy soldier. As you may know, people in firefights tend to hunker behind objects rather than standing in the open inviting chest hits.

Keith

[EchoSixMike]

Umm, my twelve year old enjoys shooting my FAL. If anyone can't handle the recoil of a modest round like the .308, they should be handling a typewriter in the rear instead of a rifle in the field.

Yep, and when I was 12 I was shooting at the National Matches at Camp Perry with an M14. And by the time I was 13 I had more firearms experience than 95% of active or reserve troops. Most troops DON'T get enough live fire to become proficient, you think that would be helped by going to 7.62x51, which by your own stats consumes 3 times the raw materials. The simple fact is that it's easier to train troops to shoot 5.56 than 7.62. When the DoD reinstitutes the DCM and the nation starts shooting as the national pastime in order to have a martially skilled culture, than maybe I could accept the 7.62x51 as a general issue cartridge. But since this is about as likely as an asteroid striking earth and killing us all, I won't hold my breath.

And what do those combat experienced snipers say about the effects of a .308 round on an enemy combatant? Is there a big movement to replace the .30 caliber rifles with .223 sniper rifles?
No? And why not?

Because sniper rifles are different critters than assault rifles. Although, to be frank, 90% of the shots made by snipers could be made by 5.56x45 rounds. And snipers get more rifle training than line grunts(although IMO they still don't get enough) And the USMC is fielding a 5.56x45 scoped rifle, the SAM(Squad Advanced Marksman) rifle, and it will likely be very effective because the bullets will go into the right spot to make the bad guys die.

I will say that the 308 with ideal bullets will be better than the 5.56 with ideal bullets, but that's not the arguement. The issued M80 7.62x51 is not better than the issued M855 or Mk262 Mod 1 5.56x45, and no arguement by you or I is going to change that simple fact. S/F...Ken M

[Keith]

Because sniper rifles are different critters than assault rifles.

We weren't discussing rifles, we were discussing bullets. It doesn't matter what rifle a bullet is launched from when it strikes the target.

The issued M80 7.62x51 is not better than the issued M855 or Mk262 Mod 1 5.56x45, and no arguement by you or I is going to change that simple fact.

Then I ask again, why don't military snipers use the .223? You simply don't want to admit that the .308 does more damage and penetrates intervening objects better than the .223.

If you want to argue that the M16/M4 is a better rifle/system than the FAL or M14 or whatever, for general combat conditions/logistics, etc, then that's a different argument entirely.

It may be that within the larger picture, wound lethality takes second place to other considerations like the amount of ammo that can be carried, etc. And that may be true, though if I was in a firefight I'd be hard to convince - I'd want a larger caliber vs more bullets!

Keith

[Jeff White]

Keith,

You said,
Umm, my twelve year old enjoys shooting my FAL. If anyone can't handle the recoil of a modest round like the .308, they should be handling a typewriter in the rear instead of a rifle in the field.

Does your FAL weigh 6 1/2 pounds? My M4 does. Don't you think a 6 1/2 pound 7.62x51 battle rifle might be a little hard for anyone to handle? How's your FAL do on full auto? Easy to control? One of the big reasons the 7.62x51 isn't general issue is that no one could build a rifle light enough that was controllable with full auto fire.

You ask;
Then I ask again, why don't military snipers use the .223? You simply don't want to admit that the .308 does more damage and penetrates intervening objects better than the .223.

First off, no one in the US military shoots .223 or .308. Yes, there is a difference between .223 and .308 and 5.56 and 7.62 mm. While they are for all intents and purposes interchangeable, they aren't the same rounds.

The reason military snipers use the 7.62x51 is that the 5.56x45 does not have the range for the mission. echosixmike is correct in that most military sniper engagements are close enough that the shot could have been made with 5.56x45mm. However, the sniper has an 800 - 1000 meter mission that can't be done with the 5.56x45 round. SOF snipers have had some very successful engagements with 5.56x45 SPRs shooting MK 262 mod 1 ammunition. The SPR is a specially built M16 from the NSW lab at Crane Indiana. Kills have been made at ranges that you would not believe possible with a 5.56mm weapon with this combination.

Snipers have a different mission then the basic rifleman. That's it, the reason they use 7.62x51.

It may be that within the larger picture, wound lethality takes second place to other considerations like the amount of ammo that can be carried, etc. And that may be true, though if I was in a firefight I'd be hard to convince - I'd want a larger caliber vs more bullets!

Go to Shawn Dodsons excellent Firearms Tactical Website. There is a link at TFL, don't know if there is one here or not. Once there, find the link to Dr. Fackler's work on military rifle rounds. You find, that both M193 and M855 have a better terminal effects then M80 ball. The 5.56x45 rounds break at the cannelure and fragment when they hit at velocities above 2500 fps. Not all 5.56x45 rounds exhibit this, just M193 and M855 and those bullets that are constructed identically. M80 ball which is the standard US 7.62x51 round does NOT fragment. It penetrates deeper before it yaws, then normally exits sideways. The wounds are not as severe as those caused by M193 or M855. There are 7.62x51 rounds that do fragment like M193 and M855, but they are not issued to the US military, IIRC the West German and Austrian 7.62x51 ball fragmented and gave similar terminal effects to the 5.56x45 loads.. It's not the caliber, it's the way the bullet is constructed. There have been on and off reports of lethality problems with current issue M855. M855 has a small air pocket between the jacket and the steel penetrator. There have been problems making the bullet with that air pocket from the start way back in the late 70s. My guess is that those problems may be related to production problems and some current M855 being not exactly to spec.

It's not quite as simple as bigger bullet equals bigger hole.

Jeff

[Blackhawk 6]

I have no doubt that the X-ray technician who provided the information that started this thread had nothing but the best intentions. Each of us can make his own conclusion regarding the an X-ray technician's qualification to comment on a particular round's suitability on the battlefield. But regardless of your conclusions about his qualification or the information he has provided, but compiling little snip-its of hear-say information to support your position in the great "5.56mm vs. 7.62mm" debate is ignorant, no matter which side you are on. I am sorry but there is no nice way to say it.

I can appreciate the fact that some of you do not consider the 5.56mm an adequate combat round. I respect your belief that the 7.62mm is a better choice for the standard infantry rifle. You are entitled to your opinions. But some of you are angry about this issue. Way too angry.

I commanded a rifle company in Afghanistan. My company saw 11 days of combat during Operation Anaconda and was involved in several other small operations. I have personally witnessed engagements with every standard weapon system available to a rifle company and some that are not. Not only did I not have any complaints with regard to weapons performance, but I did not hear any in our battalion.

The only complaint I heard about the M-4 was from a friend in 5th Special Forces Group whose complained that the M-4 was not putting people down fast enough at CQB ranges. At the same time, another member of 5th Special Forces Group had nothing but good things to say about his SPR and had made several kills past 600 meters with it. The first time I heard anything significant about the "poor performance" of the M-4 was when I returned to the United States and read it in... a gun magazine!

Additionally, I work with another officer who was a platoon leader in Somalia. He saw extensive combat, including 3-4 October, and he has no complaints about the 5.56mm. Several of his engangement were at 10 feet or less.

I am always interested in these type of threads because the subject interests me and in my current duty position I have access to all kinds of official reports and studies on a variety of topics. Hardly a day passes when I do not receive some type of after action review on either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Keith, with all due respect, I was unable to recall any unit action that was halted because soldiers were unable to neutralize a threat with 5.56mm and an air strike had to be called in. Your assertion is suspect on a number of levels, but I do not claim to be the consummate expert on every engagement in Iraq. Please provide me the unit and location of the action and I will try to locate the after-action report. I will also post what is relevant.

All of that having been said, I think we can all agree that the 7.62mm is clearly superior to the 5.56mm in terms of external and terminal ballistics. But just because the 7.62mm is superior does not make the 5.56mm inadequate or a poor choice. Clearly there is room for improvement, but the American soldier/Marine is well-armed with his 5.56mm rifle. End of sermon.

[Sir Galahad]

I wonder if this argument raged between the British and French in the 1700s. "Well, of course a .69 caliber musket is better! You can carry 4 more paper cartridges than the .75!" "Awww, you don't know what you're talking about! Everyone knows the .75 has more knock-down power!" Then along came the .58 Springfield firing Minies. "Awww, what a POS! Everyone knows those conicals just zip right through a guy! You need a .69 round ball to anchor some Reb whacked out of his gourd on corn squeezin's!" Then came the .45/70. "Awww, what a POS! Everyone knows that you need at least a .58 Minie to anchor some Cheyenne wacked out of his gourd with peyote!" Then came the .30-40 Krag and later the .30-06 and some grizzled old guy was saying, "Awww, those little puny things are worthless next to a .45/70. Why, it's no wonder those Germans wacked out of their gourds on shnapps and sauerkraut aren't going down when hit with a .30-06! The .303 is even worse! I heard of a German who took a full 200 round belt from a Vickers water-cooled dead in the chest and kept right on cooking his bratwurst over a spent phosphorous shell! And the Germans themselves use a 8mm which is not much better. I read an article that said some American doughboy wacked out of his tin pan helmet on bourbon took a full 5 200 round belts from a Maxim and kept right on a-singin' "Over There!" so loud they could hear him a mile away even though both lungs were punctured!" Some Soviets were having a conversation about this. "Tovarich, every comrade knows this new 7.62x39mm is a POS. You need at least 7.62x54 to kill capitalists because every good communist knows they're all wacked out of their gourds on fervor to enslave the masses! And how do you plan to shoot enemies of the state with this puny round? You laugh now, but will you be laughing when those traitors come dancing out of the execution pit because of your ineffective 7.62x39? Then we waste pistol ammo having to shoot them in back of neck! We'll just see what Stalin has to say about this!"

[telomerase]

>"Tovarich, every comrade knows this new 7.62x39mm is a POS. You need at least 7.62x54 to kill capitalists

I've read that Hitler thought this way about the Sturmgewehr and its similar caliber (but 9mm was OK???)

Anyway, everyone knows the only way to get stopping power is with a microwave pulse big enough to vaporize the entire body.

[tac17]

Why are you changing the subject? Did I say a .308 round would knock somebody down? Please indicate where I said this.
I wasn't changing the subject you said:
People shot with .308's are more prone to falling down and dying than people shot with .223's.
So I explained to you the only mechanisms that would cause any round to cause anyone to fall down and die. In this debate it would not be due to the fact that an object with more mass impacted their body, not in the .308 versus .223 debate anyway.
Why are you changing the subject? Did I say that a .308 hit in the arm would cause someone to fall down and die? Please indicate where I said this.
Once again I wasn't changing the subject I was only pointing out that only good hits count so we could move on to the next line of though. Which was tissue damage that mattered and statements such as:
A .308 round has triple the mass and 1/3 greater diameter than a .223. As such, simple physics dictates that it will penetrate deeper and make a bigger hole - meaning that more tissue is damaged.
Once again you are incorrect in this assumption. If the 5.56 round enters a body within its range for fragmentation then it produces a much more devastating wound than does the 7.62, which merely enters into the body yawing rather deeply and then more than likely exits the body. You should keep in mind that the last rethinking of the M80 was in 50's I believe. The M80 hasn't benefited from any of the technological advances in bullet design over the last 50 years.
A .308 is also far more likely to penetrate any cover the enemy is hiding behind, again increasing the odds of a hit and the death of the enemy soldier.
I will agree with you as I always have that the .308 is more likely to penetrate some cover than the 5.56. On some cover it matters which caliber you are using and on some it doesn't. Like I have stated from the beginning they both have their strengths and weaknesses, the military obviously felt that the stengths of the 5.56 would better suit its needs than those of the 7.62.

[tac17]

I wonder if this argument raged between the British and French in the 1700s.
I am sure it played out about like you posted. I wonder if the negative reports we hear about some weapons are relative to something I heard someone say once. They said that the first time you fire your weapon in combat you aren't going to be that impressed with the results no matter what caliber it is. I wouldn't know personally, I have never fired a weapon in combat, but I can see their point. I guess you are just expecting so much more to happen, more of a movie type hit than you are going to get in real life.

[Sgt]

Good Grief !!:rolleyes:

(Art was here...)

Sgt

[Art Eatman]

Ideas. We debate/discuss/debunk ideas.

Don't be in a hurry to respond to a post, as sometimes has seemed to be the case. Re-read the post before responding. Go off and drink a cuppa kawfee before re-reading your own post, before clicking on "Submit Reply".

:), Art

[Sgt]

Gee Art,

I'm not sure if I should feel privileged, or violated?:D

[Keith]

Does your FAL weigh 6 1/2 pounds? My M4 does. Don't you think a 6 1/2 pound 7.62x51 battle rifle might be a little hard for anyone to handle?

Uh no, I don't. My hunting rifle is a six pound .350 Rem Mag. The .308 is a puppy dog of a cartridge, particularly in a auto-loader.

If the 5.56 round enters a body within its range for fragmentation then it produces a much more devastating wound than does the 7.62, which merely enters into the body yawing rather deeply and then more than likely exits the body.

If the 5.56 is designed to fragment, it will be a shock to all concerned. If the 7.62 exits the body, it's because it penetrated further and did more tissue damage.

Keith

[Keith]

Keith, with all due respect, I was unable to recall any unit action that was halted because soldiers were unable to neutralize a threat with 5.56mm and an air strike had to be called in. Your assertion is suspect on a number of levels

I'm quoting an official report posted right here on THR. I'm sorry I don't have a link, but the subject has been kicked around quite a bit here. Apparently, some Marine Recon units had guys equipped with M14's, while most didn't. Those that did, found they were very successful at neutralizing targets holding up the advance. Those that didn't found they had to call in air or artillery to do the same thing - and couldn't move as fast.

Most commonly, it was just a couple of armed guys in a cinder block building (the common construction method in the middle east). The .223 was completely ineffective against such buildings while the .308 was able to chew them up and clear them.

Keith

[natedog]

Dave, as much as I enjoy an unpolitically correct joke, and despise political correctness (control your speech, control your thoughts, control your actions), I said that only because it is apparent that there are many "fence-sitters" here who may be offended by jokes like that. It's the same reason that we aren't allowed to cuss in this forum. Also, your joke only perpetuates a stereotype that all gun-owners are a bunch of biggoted red-necks.

[tac17]

If the 5.56 is designed to fragment, it will be a shock to all concerned. If the 7.62 exits the body, it's because it penetrated further and did more tissue damage.
But aren't you wasting all the energy from that huge mass of the M80 round you were commenting on earlier if this occurs? I am speaking the facts on the subject according to the science published on the issue. Did you even take a look at those results I posted for you a few pages back?
I'm quoting an official report posted right here on THR. I'm sorry I don't have a link, but the subject has been kicked around quite a bit here. Apparently, some Marine Recon units had guys equipped with M14's, while most didn't.
Is this what you are talking about:
Excerpts taken from
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/oif/oifequipmentll.htm.

"...M-4 carbine: Soldiers were very satisfied with this weapon. It performed well in a demanding environment especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics. As one Brigade Commander said, "The M-4 with PEQ and PAC provided overmatch over our threat equipped with AK-47s and RPGs." The general consensus is that every rifleman wants the M-4 vice the M-16A2.
The most significant negative comment was reference the M-4's range. In the desert, there were times were soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range. The 82d Airborne soldiers wished they had deployed with M-14's at the squad level as the 101st did..."

I agree that could be a problem but it would depend on force structure I suppose. As I have stated numerous times so far both weapons have their strengths and their weaknesses. This would fall under the weakness heading for the 5.56 round. I honestly have no idea though whether a 7.62 rifle would have been that much help in that situation either. Does a 7.62 bullet still have enough gas to go through a cinder block structure at 500 yards? Perhaps a backyard experiment is in order.
:evil:

[Keith]

But aren't you wasting all the energy from that huge mass of the M80 round you were commenting on earlier if this occurs?

The mass is only useful in that it destroys tissue. If a 7.62 goes through 24 inches of tissue, it's more destructive than a .223 which only penetrates say, 13 inches of tissue. It isn't about kinetic energy, it's about tissue damage. Ask a hunter about this.

And before you go off about how a human is only a foot thick or something, think about the fact the fact that humans in firefights are rarely standing up baring their chest for gun shots. They are prone or on hands and knees or crouched behind some sort of cover. If the bullet goes through the intervening object and then through as much tissue as it encounters, that's a good thing. If it goes through one enemy soldier and then hits the guy behind him, that's an even better thing!

Is this what you are talking about :

I don't know if that's the same report or not - probably is.

And I have no doubt that soldiers were pleased with the M4 vs the M16, but that's hardly the issue! no doubt I'd prefer an M4 over an M16 also.

What I found telling is where they discuss unit actions where an M14 was present at the company (or squad?) level and how that facilitated actions - and the recommendation that this option be explored further.

And that's probably the best we'll ever get. Something portable in .308 will (hopefully) end up in the hands of small units to be employed against light vehicles and structures. That would be a good thing.

Keith

And

[Jeff White]

Keith said,

Uh no, I don't. My hunting rifle is a six pound .350 Rem Mag. The .308 is a puppy dog of a cartridge, particularly in a auto-loader.

Hey bro, what's the cyclic rate of fire for that puppydog cartridge/rifle combo you've got there?

If the 5.56 is designed to fragment, it will be a shock to all concerned. If the 7.62 exits the body, it's because it penetrated further and did more tissue damage.

I doubt that the bullet was designed to fragment. No one knew enough about the terminal ballistics of any round to be designing bullets to fragment back then. It was a fortunate accident that the original M193 cartridge created such devastating wounds.

If the 7.62 bullet passes all the way through the body yawing 180 degrees and does not break up, how could it possibly do more tissue damage then a 5.56 that fragments? The science just doesn't back up your theory.

Please check out these diagrams:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg

You will note that both the M193 and M855 create larger permant wound cavities and disrupt more tissue. You can read Dr. Fackler's 1989 article on Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets published in the International Defense Review here:
http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

Of course you have to be open minded enough to accept the fact that sometimes science will disprove some previously held notions.

Jeff

[tac17]

I don't think he put much stock in those diagrams when I posted them earlier. :D

[Keith]

Hey bro, what's the cyclic rate of fire for that puppydog cartridge/rifle combo you've got there?

Who cares? Issue them in semi-auto if full auto is too much.

Of course you have to be open minded enough to accept the fact that sometimes science will disprove some previously held notions.

I don't think you are open minded enough to accept science even when proven by your own links! The .308 punches through 64 centimeters, while the .223 punches through only half of that. In other words, if you shoot a crouching man in the butt with a .223 it stops in his abdomen. Shoot him with a 7.62, it comes out the top of his head. One is dead, one is still shooting at you.

Crouching man behind wall shot at with .223 - no hit. Behind wall with 7.62 - hit. In light vehicle - .223 - no hit. In light vehicle - 7.62 - hit.

Only hits count. And when hit, the longer the wound channel the more bones and tissue are destroyed. Forget all this temporary wound cavity baloney and look at actual DESTROYED tissues, nerves and bones.



Keith

[tac17]

...the longer the wound channel the more bones and tissue are destroyed. Forget all this temporary wound cavity baloney and look at actual DESTROYED tissues, nerves and bones.
It isn't just how long the wound channel is, it is also how big around it is as well. If you would consult the diagrams you would even see that the 5.56 rounds with fragmentation produces a larger permanent wound cavity than the M80 does. Penetration isn't the only thing you have to consider.

[Mike Irwin]

"In other words, if you shoot a crouching man in the butt with a .223 it stops in his abdomen. Shoot him with a 7.62, it comes out the top of his head. One is dead, one is still shooting at you."

If he was crouching with his a** towards you, he wasn't shooting at you in the first place. Unless, of course, he had the rifle point over his shoulder while looking in the opposite direction.


"Crouching man behind wall shot at with .223 - no hit. Behind wall with 7.62 - hit."

Just about every wall I've ever seen will defeat a 7.62 bullet if it's more than 1/2 a brick thick.

I've also shot my fair share of "light vehicles" with .223s through the body, etc.

Let's just say that I certainly wouldn't want to be in one when someone was shooting at it with either caliber. Ending up dead is a very distinct possibility.

At 90 yards the .223 military surplus I was shooting had no problem punching through the doors on an early 1960s junked Chevy pick up truck.

"Only hits count. And when hit, the longer the wound channel the more bones and tissue are destroyed."

Ok, we'll forget the temporary wound cavity. That's why I like the permanent wound cavity cut into ballistic gelatin by the .223 round over the much smaller and less destructive cavitiy cut by the .308 round.

[Jeff White]

Keith said,
Who cares? Issue them in semi-auto if full auto is too much.

Then we've just taken a great step backward to 1945. Full auto capability is very handy for a couple of things Infantrymen need to do i.e. gain fire superiority upon unexpected contact, break contact drills, final protective fires. Other then that hand held full auto is about useless. But why handicap our soldiers like that?

7.62 and 5.56 are very marginal rounds against light vehicles. You want to deal with vehicle mounted threats, you're getting into .50 BMG, MK19 40mm AGl, LAW and AT4 territory. I wouldn't want to depend on either 5.56mm or 7.62mm to stop an unarmored vehicle like the 60s era Chevy Mike references.
We fight as a combined arms team now. Even a light Infantry platoon is equipped with several weapons systems to give it depth and reach across the battlefield. And that light platoon can always count on at least 60mm mortar fires from the company mortar squad to supplement it's organic capabilites.

As Tac 17 mentions, the diagrams show the permanent wound cavities. You example of the crouching target is a bit humorous. Targets are fleeting and hard to see on the battlefield. Often you will fire at a terrain feature, treeline etc. Not at a nice "E' or "F" silhouette standing out against the skyline. I hate to think I'd have to find my enemy in that position just to get the most out of the terminal effects of the rounds I'm using.

Jeff

[Keith]

If he was crouching with his a** towards you, he wasn't shooting at you in the first place. Unless, of course, he had the rifle point over his shoulder while looking in the opposite direction.

Ethics in warfare - interesting concept...

Just about every wall I've ever seen will defeat a 7.62 bullet if it's more than 1/2 a brick thick.

Go argue with the Pentagon, they found otherwise in Iraq.

Ok, we'll forget the temporary wound cavity. That's why I like the permanent wound cavity cut into ballistic gelatin by the .223 round over the much smaller and less destructive cavitiy cut by the .308 round.

Smaller? Look at the length of the channel, not just the width.

At 90 yards the .223 military surplus I was shooting had no problem punching through the doors on an early 1960s junked Chevy pick up truck

Again, argue with the Pentagon. Are you suggesting that a 55 grain .223 will penetrate objects better than a 150 grain .308 round? If true, physics experts will be astounded!

Keith

[EchoSixMike]

Jeff, one of my teams over in Denmark watched the grunts hit a VW minibus with an AT4 during an infantry assault. It was awesome. Shredded vehicle, parts flying through the air, catching on fire, it looked like a movie. Contrast this with the very alive Iraqis who are getting out of vehicles hit by M2 .50cal or M240 7.62x51 co-ax from M1 tanks. They was even one guy who got out of a van after it had been stopped by a SABOT round from a 120mm tank cannon!

Anybody who'd want to use rifle caliber small arms vs vehicles when they have organic AT/HE weapons is silly. S/F...Ken M

[Mike Irwin]

"Ethics in warfare - interesting concept..."

Ethics?

You're sadly mistaken.

I was pointing out the wanton absurdity of your statement.

I still want to know...

How is someone shooting at you if your shot hits him in the buttocks and lodges in his abdomen, or conversely, comes out the top of his head.

Sounds more like you're saying you're shooting someone who is at even prayers and on his knees toward Mecca.

As for the Pentagon given that it was ammo that was procured by the Pentagon in the first place, I don't see what the conceptual problem is. The Pentagon adopted the current .223 ammo after it had shown the capability to penetrate both sides of car/truck doors at ranges of upwards 250 meters.

The concept that a 7.62 bullet can punch through a wall (apparently of any thickness, given your lack of criteria) and result in a hit on the other side is nice, but as is so often the case, it's simply not as simple as that.

You say "Go talk to the Pentagon." Here's a concept for you. How about, since you seem to have this font of knowledge from the Pentagon, post some links?


"Smaller? Look at the length of the channel, not just the width."

Given that the vast majority of all wounds happen to an individual who is standing, in other words providing a relatively thin cross section, the extra penetrational advantage of the 7.62 round is nothing more than a chimera.

At 14 inches, you're through and through most human beings (your "shoot them in the bung" fantasy scenario not withstanding).

Links to visuals on permanent wound cavities have been posted. It shouldn't be difficult for most reasonable people to see the difference in the nature of the wound, and realize how the differ.

"Again, argue with the Pentagon. Are you suggesting that a 55 grain .223 will penetrate objects better than a 150 grain .308 round? If true, physics experts will be astounded!"

Tell you what. Maybe we can have Moderator Mal come in and talk on this subject. He worked in the physics field, don't you know...

But you know, you have a certain felecity for taking the direct and turning it into a completely obtuse statement and try to throw in a breath of scientific validity. On its face, it looks good, but in reality it's based on shaky assumptions, poorly conceptualized information and, no doubt, more than just a pinch of the "WAG" thrown in for good measure.

Tell me, just what OBJECTS are we talking about?

Tanks? Neither will penetrate a tank.

Whales? No whales in the desert.

I gave you a very specific example of a situation and an object -- 90 yards, current US military round, early 1960s pick up truck. In fact, the same sort of situation and object that YOU originally brought up.

I hope I still have the pictures that show the through and through penetration on the truck door. If I do, I'll post them for you.

[tac17]

Go argue with the Pentagon, they found otherwise in Iraq.
The Pentagon never exactly said anything about how the 7.62 were used to help with the situation mentioned. Could be a number of things, somehow I doubt shooting through walls was really one of them though. I could be wrong however, it has happened in the past.

Smaller? Look at the length of the channel, not just the width.
Yeah that was my arguement to you. I am glad that you are finally starting to realize that there are many factors that determine the severity of wounding.
Again, argue with the Pentagon. Are you suggesting that a 55 grain .223 will penetrate objects better than a 150 grain .308 round? If true, physics experts will be astounded!
Funny you should mention that one because it is indeed the case.
The SS-109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS-109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters.
I suppose that there are physics experts falling out of their chair all over the world after they have read what I have just typed.

:banghead:

edited to add:
On a brief side note, A grain of sand moving at enough speed will penetrate a good many things. Mass isn't the only figure that determines penetration.

[Mike Irwin]

"The SS-109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS-109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters."

NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

That's not right, Tac! That's NOT right! (Sorry, wrong attribution!)

The Pentagon!

The PENTAGONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

The Physics Experts!

NO!

Hehehe...

Thank you for posting that.

I was just coming in to post something very similar that I managed to find.

Let's see...

I don't think Chevy (I think it was a Chevy, but it may have been a Ford) ever made their trucks from the same stuff that NATO uses...

And I'm pretty certain that the door panels aren't 3.45 mm thick...

And I KNOW that we weren't shooting from 640 meters...

Given all of the above, is it little wonder why the .223 surplus we were shooting didn't have any problems zipping through that truck door?

And yet, if you belive some people, it should have just bounced off like so many spit balls...

[Correia]

Mike, I didn't post anything. I think you are thinking of somebody else.

Leave me out of this one! :D

[Keith]

How is someone shooting at you if your shot hits him in the buttocks and lodges in his abdomen, or conversely, comes out the top of his head.

Well, when you enlist you can holler out to any enemies you encounter and request them to turn around and face you man to man before you shoot at them. In real life, people consider it good fortune if they get an opportunity to shoot somebody not shooting back at the moment - even if they're crawling away on their knees or belly, or yes, even if they're praying.

Given that the vast majority of all wounds happen to an individual who is standing, in other words providing a relatively thin cross section, the extra penetrational advantage of the 7.62 round is nothing more than a chimera.

You obviously watch too much television!

Keith

[Keith]

TAC,

Your last post contradicts your earlier post where the 7.62 had double the penetration of the 5.56!

You are allowing yourself to be led off-track with all of this. It may very well be true that the current production NATO 7.62 has less penetration than current production NATO 5.56 - though that would contradict the field reports posted here on THL as well as the tests you yourself posted earlier today! Different measures yield different results. so whatever...

However, if the current 7.62 is a poor penetrator it's easily fixed by simply changing the specs! Physics dictates that the heavier of two objects will yield the greatest energy and penetrayion - all other things being equal.

Ergo; a 150 grain 7.62 will outperform a 55 grain 5.56.

Keith

[tac17]

Your last post contradicts your earlier post where the 7.62 had double the penetration of the 5.56!
ROTFLMAO

Two words for you man, 1.)READING 2.)COMPREHENSION. :D Earlier we were talking about penetration in tissue. I agree 100% that 7.62 M80 goes rather deep through tissue.

You said:
Again, argue with the Pentagon. Are you suggesting that a 55 grain .223 will penetrate objects better than a 150 grain .308 round? If true, physics experts will be astounded!
This statement was made in regards to someone commenting that a round of ".223 military surplus", "had no problem punching through the doors on an early 1960s junked Chevy pick up truck." He never actually suggested that "55 grain .223 will penetrate objects better than a 150 grain .308 round." He merely stated that it would go through a door. You then made your comment. I merely stated an example in which indeed the penetration of the 5.56 is indeed superior to the 7.62. I would guess the difference in the pentration shown in the study I quoted would have something to do with semi-armor piercing nature of SS109, I could be wrong however.

Not reversing my position on anything merely making a statement of fact. There are plenty of 7.62 rounds that can beat the SS109 at that test, unfortunately none of them are the M80.

However, if the current 7.62 is a poor penetrator it's easily fixed by simply changing the specs! Physics dictates that the heavier of two objects will yield the greatest energy and penetrayion - all other things being equal.
I really don't think that anyone is trying to tell you that the 7.62 is a bad caliber, M80 as a round isn't that great. It could be redesigned, I believe that it is Germany that has a 7.62 caliber that they have managed to make fragment like the 5.56. (If I am wrong about that someone correct me.) I think that the point that everyone is trying to make, well at least me, is not that the .308 sucks, merely that the 5.56 isn't as bad as everyone claims. The 5.56 can hold its own with the 7.62 in most realistic engagement distances. Sure it has its weaknesses, they both do, but that doesn't mean that the military is insane for issuing it to the troops.:D

[EchoSixMike]

https://call2.leavenworth.army.mil/oif/index.asp?WGSID=131675939

Here's the current location of unclassified OIF AAR's. They are "For Official Use Only" and so are only accessable to DoD members.

There has been some cross posting of some OIF AAR's at the Soldiers for the Truth website, but the posting has been selective to push the agenda that the site wishs to push.

Here are some applicable quotes:
5.56mm vs. 7.62 Lethality - 5.56mm “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as the shots were in the head or chest they went down” were typical quotes from several Marines; many who were previously very skeptical of 5.56mm ammunition. Most of the interviewed Marines who reported targets not going down and/or could still fight were referencing non-lethal shots to the extremities. There were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories need not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round. Some Marines did ask about getting the heaver-grained 5.56mm rounds, up to 77 grain if possible.

Also:
Enemy Engagements - Almost everyone interviewed stated that all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the 20-30 meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.

There is some other stuff, but it's .pdf files that you can not cut and paste from and I'm not going to post the entire thing in the clear although it's probably out there already. S/F...Ken M

[JShirley]

Jeff White,

"SLAP" stands for Sabot, Light, Armor-Piercing. Those were subcaliber rounds pumped into that guy. Whose point are you proving? ;)

Awright. Is this a "caliber" discussion, or a "platform" war? Are we talking about AK47 7.62x39mm short/fat vs. 5.56x45mm thin rounds? Where did the 7.62 NATO get brought in? Where's my medication?

Good gosh golly, it almost sounds like someone suggested that those who carped about AR15/M16 family did so because they couldn't afford them. That's pretty bogus. I sold my Colt AR15A2 because it was too big for what it was, an 8 lb-ish, bulky .22 caliber. My M16A4 was very accurate, but didn't like sand. While I never "combat rolled" or IMT'ed with them, I've never had any malfunctions (other than when firing lightly loaded plastic-core training rounds) in the 6 or 7 Comblock autoloaders I've owned. The M4 is ergonomic. It is handy in a vehicle, or while clearing a building. It is also an outdated design. Can we use it? Yeah. Should we?

I think we should go with a slightly larger diameter, heavier round that is still much smaller and lighter than the 7.62x51mm. Grunts/crunchies have enough to carry without dramatically upping the weight and bulk of their ammo. Personally, I think 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 or 7.62 NATO all work well enough, when you can hit with them. There ain't no magic bullets. My concern is logistics and range. It is very possible to design a round that will have all the penetration and range of the 7.62 NATO while being much closer to 5.56x45mm in size, thus eliminating the need for two different rounds for MG's/rifles/sniper weapons. We can get a modern, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th Gen design at the same time. (M16 being 2nd Gen assault rifle, to my thinking.)

Dave, very funny. One of the funniest things I think I've ever read here. On the other hand, perjoratives like "towelhead" have no place here.

[Mike Irwin]

"You obviously watch too much television!"


:confused:

OK, Keith, you got me on that one. I've NO clue what you're talking about.

IIRC from anatomy the average human torso is just shy of 12" deep, and from military wound studies, VERY few rifle wounds are actually oblique (parallel to the plane of the torso of a standing man). The VAST majority of them are penetrating (through the plane of the torso).

"Well, when you enlist you can holler out to any enemies you encounter and request them to turn around and face you man to man before you shoot at them."

When you enlist?

Say what?

You mean I could stand in the recruiting office shout "TURN AROUND SO I CAN SHOOT YOU IN THE A**!" and any enemies you might meet in the future will immediately turn and go butt up to present a target?

Wow. Pretty damned amazing!

And you say I watch too much TV? I think you've been getting your "scenarios" from Fox's Stupidest Police Videos 3, dude. Or maybe Jackass. I can't figure out which one.

But you still haven't answered my question...

How is someone shooting at you if they're face down, butt in the air, providing you with a full-moon target?

And please phrase your answer in the form of a statement that DOESN'T include some sort of wild west fantasy "call'em out" scenario...

[tac17]

I think we should go with a slightly larger diameter, heavier round that is still much smaller and lighter than the 7.62x51mm...It is very possible to design a round that will have all the penetration and range of the 7.62 NATO while being much closer to 5.56x45mm in size, thus eliminating the need for two different rounds for MG's/rifles/sniper weapons. We can get a modern, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th Gen design at the same time.
Sounds like where we are headed already if the rumors are to be believed. Any thoughts on the caliber or platform?

[JShirley]

Caliber should be at or near 6mm. Weight around 100 grains. Velocity close to 3000 fps.

Unsure about platform, other than that it should make extensive use of polymers for weight savings. Semi and two-shot burst fire.

[tac17]

Something along the lines of the 6mm SAW, the 6X53 version? That's pretty close to your requirements.

As far as the platform, do you think that they would be more like to try and find a new round to switch the current stuff over to first and slowly work out the new platform, or do you think the new round would enter with a platform all at once?

[Jeff White]

I think that you'll see SOF with a 6.8x43mm M16/M4 type weapon before the year is out. I doubt if you ever see the big army go to it. Why? Because of the expense. It would simply cost too much to convert the entire army and we wouldn't be getting much benefit from it. You know these online debates can be fun (or frustrating depending on your point of view) , but the reality is, there is nothing wrong with our small arms. Soldiers and Marines are NOT dying because their small arms or ammunition is failing them. We made it through Vietnam, the Mayaguez Incident and Grenada with the M16A1 and M193 ammuntion. The M16A2 and M855 served us well in Panama, DS1, Somalia, Columbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

the M16/M4 and 5.56mm round will continue to soldier on until something that offers a substantial improvement is available. All this talk of the XM8, the XM8 will go the way of the ACR project. It offers change for the sake of change, but no improvement in capability. Just like MacArthur refusing to sign off on the .276 caliber Garand, because of the stocks of .30 M2 ball that we had, no Secretary of Defense is going to spend the kind of money it would take to re-arm with the XM8 because we have too much invested in the M16.

The arguement can be made that an intermediate cartridge in the 7mm range should have been what we went with in the first place. But until someone invents a time machine and we can go back and reverse some decisions that were made, we're going to use the 5.56x45 in one form or another. With any luck MK262 mod 1 will be the new standard.

Jshirley.
I know what SLAP is, it was the first 7.62 reference I came to when I started skimming BHD.:cool: .

Jeff

[JShirley]

:neener:

John

(You sure the United States Navy Rifle, Model 1895 wasn't worse than the M14? ;))

(PSS: if it doesn't have a gas piston, it's unreliable! :D )

[Jeff White]

(You sure the United States Navy Rifle, Model 1895 wasn't worse than the M14? )

(PSS: if it doesn't have a gas piston, it's unreliable! )

John,
Naw the M14 was better then the 1895 Navy, but if you really wanted stopping power, you have to have a .75 caliber Brown Bess.....Too bad we never adopted the .45/120 Sharps...now that rifle had one shot stop capability :D

Jeff


PS lets start a thread on how the Union could have ended the Civil War by adopting the Henry Rifle and dropping the Springfield. :what:

[Mike Irwin]

"Soldiers and Marines are NOT dying because their small arms or ammunition is failing them."

Conversely, soldiers do die because of their small arms/ammunition failing them. Not ever round is perfect in every situation.

Sometimes nothing short of a mini tactical nuke is going to change that fact, and sometimes even that won't be of much help.



"1895 Lee Navy..."

The 6mm Lee Navy was an interesting endeavor, but ultimately a failure.

One of the things that the Navy realized early on, especially after experience in the Boxer Rebellion where Navy and Marine Corps troops armed with the 1895 saw action, was that as a man stopper the 6mm round just stank.

It suffered from a tendency to penetrate to great depths without yawing or tumbling becuase of its very high sectional density and round nose. Because of this, unless the brain or spine was hit, even a shot to the heart or other major organs didn't guarantee anything even remotely close to rapid stopping. The wounds caused were, essentially very deep, puncture wounds that didn't disrupt much tissue at all.

Even when hitting bone they didn't have a tendence to throw off splinters, but bored straight through without much disruption.

Its interesting to note that the 6.5mm rounds adopted by armies around the world around the same time, the 6.5x50 Arisaka in Japan, the 6.5x52 Carcano in Italy, the 6.5x54R (and a similar, unrimmed round) Mannlicher in Holland and Greece, the 6.5x55 in Sweden, etc., all used the same type of bullet construction -- a very long, blunt round nose of high weight and extremely high sectional density.

That's one of the reasons why "Karamajo" Bell chose these small rounds for elephant culling in Africa, when used with military FMJ ammo.

Based on his "excavations" in the skulls of dead elephants, it wasn't uncommon for one of these small rounds to penetrate through up to 6 FEET of tissue and heavy bone and come to a rest in the animals neck or chest cavity without showing much, if any, evidence of yawing or tumbling.

edited to replace ballistic coefficient with the correct term, sectional density.

[JShirley]

Oh, yeah. A 100-grain 6mm projectile already has a nice, fairly high BC- 'bout like a 7.62 165-grain, IIRC, and these were what, 125 grain?

Do you think this is a prior example of a weapons system being ruined by poor (or poorly designed) ammunition? I seem to recall some other problems too. Tended to dissasemble itself, didn't it?

[Mike Irwin]

A long bullet doesn't necessarily mean a high BC, or inherent stability, as long as it's designed to be unstable once it hits the target.

The easiest way of doing this is to concentrate as much weight as possible at the rear of the bullet and/or adjust the rifling to give it just enough stabilization, but not so much that it's easy to disturb.

That was also part of the problem with the 6.5mms of yesteryear, VERY optimally stabilized, and with weight distribution that wasn't very far off from it being a cylinder.

British .303 and Italian 7.35 mm ammo of the WW II period had either fillers or hollows in the nose of the bullet to promote this effect. Apparently in both cases it was, along with the pointed nose, fairly effective.

Current Soviet 5.45 ammo has a hollow nose, I belive, also to allow for redistribution of the weight.

As for the Lee Navy being ruined by poorly designed ammo... No, I don't think it can be so thoroughly condemned. The 6mm Lee Navy was way far ahead of the propellent technology of the day, for one.

Plus, the ballistic properties just weren't well understood until better, and easier, methods of measuring velocity were determined.

The ballistic pendulum is very accurate, but it's also a pain in the butt to set up, and you can't use it to get a true representation of the ballistic coefficient, which requires that you measure velocity at two or more places in the projectile's path, and calculate the velocity drop from that...

And DAMMIT! I just realized that I've been using ballistic coefficient in terms of bullet penetration when I should be using sectional density. Sigh.

As for the gun itself, I've not heard too many problems related to it disassmebling itself.

[RikWriter]

Getting back to this hard-hitting AAR from the combat X-ray technician... :rolleyes:

Here are the actual Army and USMC AARs from Iraq, and they tell a bit of a different story than our quixotic X-ray commando.

http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/pdf/063003army.oiflessons.pdf

http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article05122003a.pdf

[JShirley]

Hey, Rik. When the mention of .223 FMJ and deer came up, I thought of ya. :)

'S okay, Mike. We knew what ya meant.

[Mike Irwin]

"'S okay, Mike. We knew what ya meant."

It was late, I was tired.

It's now noon, and I'm STILL tired...

[Andrew Wyatt]

Anybody who'd want to use rifle caliber small arms vs vehicles when they have organic AT/HE weapons is silly.


Missiles and rockets are expensive and not everyone has them. THis means that when you have to stop a charge from a passenger car, you're probably not going to have one when you need it.

[Keith]

You example of the crouching target is a bit humorous. Targets are fleeting and hard to see on the battlefield. Often you will fire at a terrain feature, treeline etc. Not at a nice "E' or "F" silhouette standing out against the skyline.

The example of the crouching man was meant to illustrate that very point. Somebody had just made the silly suggestion that enemy soldiers were normally encountered standing up!
People in battle are hard to see because they are behind cover or face down in the dirt. You are more likely to hit them, and to do more damage to them, with a heavier round that penetrates cover and penetrates further through the body.

[Keith]

Two words for you man, 1.)READING 2.)COMPREHENSION. Earlier we were talking about penetration in tissue. I agree 100% that 7.62 M80 goes rather deep through tissue.

Maybe it's your own comprehension you should examine... You can't have it both ways - you can't claim with one hand that the 7.62 creates more damage in tissue, but has less wounding power. That makes no sense.

Keith

[Sgt]

Funny, if all you moderators weren't participating in this pissing match, it would have been closed three pages ago!

Thanks for setting such a good example for us:confused:

[Keith]

IIRC from anatomy the average human torso is just shy of 12" deep, and from military wound studies, VERY few rifle wounds are actually oblique (parallel to the plane of the torso of a standing man). The VAST majority of them are penetrating (through the plane of the torso).

Military wound studies when? 1917? I can believe the odd person gets shot standing up, but smart (or trained) people get down or behind cover when bullets fly.

How is someone shooting at you if they're face down, butt in the air, providing you with a full-moon target?

I can't imagine someone in that position shooting at me, just as I can't imagine someone standing up daring me to shoot them in the chest as you envision.
However, I can imagine them shooting someone else as you shoot them from behind or from the flank. Do you really think engagements are fought with straight lines of soldiers standing up and shooting at each other? I can't imagine where you get hat stuff from.

Keith

[Keith]

But you know, you have a certain felecity for taking the direct and turning it into a completely obtuse statement and try to throw in a breath of scientific validity. On its face, it looks good, but in reality it's based on shaky assumptions, poorly conceptualized information and, no doubt, more than just a pinch of the "WAG" thrown in for good measure

Like in the other thread where you claimed Oliver Winchester (who never designed a thing) was a design genius who invented the Winchester 1895... twenty years after he was dead? And that the extraction system shared by the BLR and BAR was too weak and would never pass a military board?

No Mike, I think the problem is on your end. You throw out these silly statements and then get angry when somebody dares challenge you.

If you didn't make these absurd claims in the first place, you wouldn't have to get further and further out on a limb to defend them.

Keith

[tac17]

Here are the actual Army and USMC AARs from Iraq, and they tell a bit of a different story than our quixotic X-ray commando.
Thanks for posting that. I was looking for it but never could find it the other day. Since you did for me I will use the point that I had to make earlier but didn't have the evidence to back it up.

Originally our X-ray tech made the following comment
Especially at distances gereater then 150m. Some of the guys have even picked up[ AK47s to use and just sling thier M4 over thier back. It;s like shooting a .22!!!!
Here is my explanation for the aforementioned use of the AK 47. The M4 isn't being that widely used in Iraq, there are only a handful of units currently using the M4 to begin with. That being said it would be much more likely that what this guy viewed wasn't an M4 slung over someones back. More than likely he never has seen this to begin with and was just getting it second hand. It would be very probable that what was being slung was a M16 and not the M4.
It clearly states in the report
There were numerous comments that the M16 it too long and cumbersome in the urban fight. Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches.
So would it not be more likely that the weapons slung over the backs would have been M16's for the shorter AK's for urban work and not the X ray tech version of slinging for work over 150 m.
Not to mention the 7.62X39 isn't any more impressive than the 5.56 at that range to begin with.

[tac17]

If you didn't make these absurd claims in the first place, you wouldn't have to get further and further out on a limb to defend them. :scrutiny: Ever hear the saying of the pot calling....

no nevermind I am going to be nice. :D

you can't claim with one hand that the 7.62 creates more damage in tissue, but has less wounding power.
Not damage, penetration. They are two seperate issues you know.

shoot them from behind or from the flank.
Are people thicker when shot from behind? :D

[Keith]

Not damage, penetration. They are two seperate issues you know.

No, they really aren't. You can design a particular round to create a larger wound cavity by using soft points or unstable rounds that tumble, etc, within the body.
But, all things being equal, a heavier missile (with the same properties) will penetrate deeper and do more damage.

The arguments against this simple physical truth are starting to get out on a limb. I mean, perhaps the current NATO 7.62 IS poorly designed (I don't know, accounts vary...), but that's no reason to discard simple logic and claim that since the current ammo is poor; no suggestion that a heavier round is good in combat can be entertained...

Are people thicker when shot from behind?

People being shot at are usually prone or crouched and generally looking for something to hide behind. And people shooting at those prone and hiding enemies may be shooting from any point within 360 degrees. Do you fail to grasp this?

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

"Anybody who'd want to use rifle caliber small arms vs vehicles when they have organic AT/HE weapons is silly."


There are also definite situations where use of explosives is contraindicated...

Say, for example, your target and you both being inside the blast radius! :)

[Mike Irwin]

"The example of the crouching man was meant to illustrate that very point. Somebody had just made the silly suggestion that enemy soldiers were normally encountered standing up!"

But crouching, Keith, is one HELL of a lot different from your description of shooting someone in the buttocks and the bullet coming out of his head as an apparently normal occurrence.

"I can believe the odd person gets shot standing up, but smart (or trained) people get down or behind cover when bullets fly."

Please go back and read my post.

I didn't say that most men are shot while standing.

I said that most wounds are closer to the right angle formed by the torso of a man while standing.

There's a huge difference there.

As I said, the vast majority of chest wounds from rifle rounds aren't oblique, they're penetrating, meaning that the bullet hit the chest closer to a right angle to the plane of the torso than parallel to the plane of the torso.

Now tell me, which is more silly?

My contention that most bullet wounds are planar, or your apparent contention that shooting someone in the A$$ parallel to the plane of the torso?

Who the hell do you expect to be fighting?

Willam Wallace's band of merry Scotsmen, the ones who mooned the English troops in the movie?

[Mike Irwin]

"but smart (or trained) people get down or behind cover when bullets fly."

Yes, yes they do, Keith.

That's why the VAST majority of military wounds are caused NOT by rifle bullets, but by shell fragments. Shell fragments, especially those from shells that burst in the air have the ability to find people where they're hidden from casual observation.

That's also why the vast majority of bullet wounds are, as I said, closer to right angles to the plane of the torso instead of oblique...

Becuase when someone is lying on the ground or hiding behind something, they're not a very viable target for small arms fire.

In the Vietnam conflict, most Americans hit with small arms fire were hit while they were in the open, standing, crouching, running for cover, etc, NOT while they were lying face down on the ground, or behind a wall, or in a ditch.

During World War II, most Americans hit with small arms fire were hit while they were in the open, standing, crouching, running for cover, etc., not while they were lying face down on the ground, or behind a wall, or in a ditch.

[JShirley]

Sgt,

I don't think any of the mods care 'bout any contest, but I'll agree this thread has outlived any usefulness.

Anyone that needs to continue, start a new one.

John