M16 in Afghanistan

[X-Rap]

At the range a VBIED would be engaged the current ammo for the M4 would do pretty good damage to a car. The driver wouldn't have a chance. Your check point only has one 7.62?

 

[Owen Sparks]

Civilians now have a better option than the .556 that still fits into the standard AR platform.

The 6.8 SPC.

 

[razorback2003]

223 is a good round and the 223 AR rifles are not heavy to carry. I wish I had one for deer hunting. The 308 AR, M14, and FN FAL are a lot of weight to carry with all your other equipment.

 

[SwissArmyDad]

Current situation is the M14s are being replaced by M110s. My brother is a DM currently in A-stan. He's never had an issue with a torso hit on an enemy with the 5.56 in Iraq or A-stan. Said it's like deer hunting. Hit the heart or lungs and they're going to die real soon. Currently his unit is changing over to the M110 for the DMs. Heavier and less ammunition and he misses the availability of grabbing some 5.56 M855 from a fellow soldier if he ran out of MK262. With 7.62 only, when he's out, he's got a club. The next DM can be quite a ways away to pass over a few mags.

Thanks for relaying that info. Definitely appreciate his service.

 

[CSestp]

I never had, have, or will have. Trouble hitting out to the 500 in 5.56. Could I do more damage with a 7.62? Yes. Can I go further with a 7.62? Yes. Can you carry double the ammo in 5.56? YES. Is a 7.62 going to be a FPITA 12 klicks down the road? Hell yes.

You drive your car to the range. Back up to the benchrest, and carry your 7.62 all of what 5 feet? When you have that thing strapped to you for 7 plus months. You will be begging to get a 5.56. Keep that in mind.

 

[AirForceShooter]

500-600 meters and a fully visible target?

Arty and AIR,
Screw the 5.56.

It works beautifully

AFS

 

[henschman]

The 5.56 is very lethal when it hits the target at sufficient velocity to cause fragmentation (i.e. the bullet breaks into more than one piece inside of the target). In fact, when the 5.56 fragments, it tends to do more damage to soft tissue than 7.62 NATO or other typical high powered rifle rounds would at the same distance. However, the 5.56 doesn't tend to fragment once it's velocity has dropped lower than 2700 fps. Out of a 20" barrel, the 5.56 drops below this threshold around 300m. Out of a 14.5" barrel, it drops below that speed at about 175m.

Neither one is that big of a deal, since most fights happen at under 150m, but for the longer shots, a full powered rifle round will get the job done better. Better designed 5.56 rounds help somewhat, but they are still not ideal, compared to a hollow point 175 grain 7.62x51 like the DMR's use.

As has always been the case, machine guns tend to do most of the killing on the battlefield, especially at those kind of distances.

 

[Owen]

In my experience with A2s the accuracy wasn't that great, 3-6 inch groups at 100yds

If you were shooting M855, that's darn good. The M855 round is usually 3-5 minute ammo from a test barrel.

 

[-v-]

The main issue in A-stan and extended ranges is lots of variable and overlapping cross winds. Any round will have trouble in that environment. At 500 yards a 5.56 will do its job just fine. As others have said the M21 DMR was a stop-gap measure that is being replaced by M110's, and SPRs. All of them with a trained shooter seem to have no issue doing their job at 500 yards+. Besides, at those ranges you should be preferentially engaging with M240Bs and M249s, those are your 200-600 yard weapons, well that and a Radio - the single most lethal weapon you can give an infantryman.

 

[Slamfire]

You look at the history of the M16 and the .223 round, it was over sold and under developed.

The .223 round was developed by a couple of guys at Bob Hutton’s ranch. They took a 222 Remington, wild catted the thing, got a velocity at a distance. That was about all the development they did.

The round is simply a wildcat that went directly into combat.

The Army lethality specifications and range requirements were written around the .223 performance. This is backwards as lethality performance at range should be fixed, and the round developed to meet it.

When the round finally got into combat, all the Colt hype about stopping power proved to be bogus.

The 223 is just not a long distance combat round. Sure it pokes holes in paper at 600 yards. I have pulled targets at 600 yards thousands of times. That 223 is usually subsonic at that range and you can’t hear it hitting the target. Makes it hard to tell if there is a round on paper unless you see the hole or see a little bit of paper fuzz come off the target. The good old 308 makes a big crack.

Want to read about the failures of the M16 and 223?, start here:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/index.html

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Ammunition Development Program.

Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel Volume 7 Appendix 6 review and analysis of M16 System Reliability.

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 5 Procurement

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 7 Vietnam Surveys

Report of the M16 Panel appendix 10 the small arms program

Report of the M16 Review Panel Summary Report.

A bud of mine, his son went to Iraq as a scout sniper. Son told Dad that at ranges of 100 yards and more, the 223 "just did not keep them down".

Dad knew, he was a Vietnam Veteran.

 

[Robert101]

I think the 5.56 is running out of gas well short of 400 to 600 yards. I do not dispute the lethality of any modern bullet, in whatever arch, to a fragile human being. I do belive that shooting through barriers is necessary and I don't believe the 5.56 is adequate for anything beyond 100 to 150 yards. We can certainly run the numbers but I believe shooting through barriers to an effective target is the key to my point. Now from a paper target stand-point, well just shoot away at any distance you desire.

 

[jeepnik]

Well, it got this from the horses mouths, my kids.

Iraq - two tours - 2nd Marine Divison - issued M-16 variant worked fine, except for dust related issues.
Afghanistan - one tour - 2nd Marine Division - Bad guys figured out the M-16 had range limitations and stayed outside of it. He "found" an M-14 and was much happier.

His younger brother.

Iraq - three tours - 1st Marine Division - issued M-16 variant worked fine, except for dust related issues.

Old farts opinion.

M-16 (original not the A1 variant) POS that darned near got me killed.
Springfield Scout - what we should have had.

 

[amprecon]

That has nothing to do with my original question.

Please start a separate 5.56 bashing thread if you feel the need.

The 5.56 running out of steam at 400-600 yards and not being able to punch through engine blocks at 5 yards are one in the same, physics, deny it if you want to.
If stating the limiting factors of 5.56 is bashing then you'd have no replies to this post at all. It is all relative.

Your check point only has one 7.62?

Yours had one?

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Has anyone brought into discussion the Mk262 and Mk318 ammo yet? It's been decades...there is more out there than M193 and M855. It's only seeing limited use but anecdotal reports are favorable.

 

[JustinJ]

The 5.56 running out of steam at 400-600 yards and not being able to punch through engine blocks at 5 yards are one in the same, physics, deny it if you want to.

Not really. The discussion about 400+ yards is about lethality in humans, not vehicles. What it takes to penetrate an engine and to kill a human are completely different things.

 

[kwelz]

One of the guys I train with was a trigger puller in the sandbox. His unit made 500 yard kills with a Mk18. So yeah it is possible.

Armchair commandos love to talk about the 5.56 round being for varmints and no good for humans at range. real trigger pullers know better.

 

[mortablunt]

Not really. The discussion about 400+ yards is about lethality in humans, not vehicles. What it takes to penetrate an engine and to kill a human are completely different things.

That is entirely true. Engine puncturing is about staying hard and solid so as to make a hole in the thing. Killing a man is about expanding and tearing up as much deep tissue as possible before creating a large exit wound.

You look at the history of the M16 and the .223 round, it was over sold and under developed.

I remember the story on Tales Of The Gun being that it was forcibly developed by Harvard guys who did things by numbers and figures.

The .223 round was developed by a couple of guys at Bob Hutton’s ranch. They took a 222 Remington, wild catted the thing, got a velocity at a distance. That was about all the development they did.

I thought that Eugene Stoner invented the caliber as a modification on the 222 in order to reach Army specifications. It was developed much.

The round is simply a wildcat that went directly into combat.

Nyaaan- Nyoron

The Army lethality specifications and range requirements were written around the .223 performance. This is backwards as lethality performance at range should be fixed, and the round developed to meet it.
Again, forced through development by guys who didn't know what in the world they were doing. The Army wanted over 100 changes done to the product and they all got vetoed.

When the round finally got into combat, all the Colt hype about stopping power proved to be bogus.

The reports of dismembered limbs came from using a less aggressive rifling spin of 1:14, so more aggressive and earlier tumbling was permitted. The shots were also generally short range things on guys who weren't that thick or big to begin with. When they changed to 1:12 in order to meet the accuracy requirements, the reports of flying limbs stopped.

The 223 is just not a long distance combat round. Sure it pokes holes in paper at 600 yards. I have pulled targets at 600 yards thousands of times. That 223 is usually subsonic at that range and you can’t hear it hitting the target. Makes it hard to tell if there is a round on paper unless you see the hole or see a little bit of paper fuzz come off the target. The good old 308 makes a big crack.

Almost any round from the right tlong gun can make a hole in paper at 600Yd.

Want to read about the failures of the M16 and 223?, start here:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/index.html

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Ammunition Development Program.

Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel Volume 7 Appendix 6 review and analysis of M16 System Reliability.

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 5 Procurement

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 7 Vietnam Surveys

Report of the M16 Panel appendix 10 the small arms program

Report of the M16 Review Panel Summary Report.

I'll give those a look after I get off work.

A bud of mine, his son went to Iraq as a scout sniper. Son told Dad that at ranges of 100 yards and more, the 223 "just did not keep them down".

In comparison to what my teacher, a former Army Ranger told me. His favorite gun is the M14, because, as he put it, "one hit at 600 yards and he's done."

Dad knew, he was a Vietnam Veteran.

This guy knew as well. I'll have to ask him what he was in. I think he was in Desert Storm and the War on Terror before Iraq, a well as in some other things too.

 

[henschman]

The fact that at some point something has been done with a certain tool does not mean that it is the best tool to accomplish the task with. However, it is commendable that some of our guys have the skill to accoplish the mission even though their equipment is not always optimized for the job.

I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that even a little .22 pill, flying at a slow velocity, punching a clean hole in and out, can still kill a man if it lands in the right place. It should also be beyond dispute that another round, which is more optimized for performance at distance, will consistently do the job better and more reliably.

I really don't see what there is to argue about here.

 

[SwissArmyDad]

The fact that at some point something has been done with a certain tool does not mean that it is the best tool to accomplish the task with. However, it is commendable that some of our guys have the skill to accoplish the mission even though their equipment is not always optimized for the job.

I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that even a little .22 pill, flying at a slow velocity, punching a clean hole in and out, can still kill a man if it lands in the right place. It should also be beyond dispute that another round, which is more optimized for performance at distance, will consistently do the job better and more reliably.

I really don't see what there is to argue about here.

Very much agreed.

 

[SwissArmyDad]

Well, it got this from the horses mouths, my kids.

Iraq - two tours - 2nd Marine Divison - issued M-16 variant worked fine, except for dust related issues.
Afghanistan - one tour - 2nd Marine Division - Bad guys figured out the M-16 had range limitations and stayed outside of it. He "found" an M-14 and was much happier.

His younger brother.

Iraq - three tours - 1st Marine Division - issued M-16 variant worked fine, except for dust related issues.

Old farts opinion.

M-16 (original not the A1 variant) POS that darned near got me killed.
Springfield Scout - what we should have had.

Thank you for this perspective, and thank you for your and your son's service.

One question - I'm aware of what fine grit can do as far as actions/movin parts cycling, making oil and grease gummy/pasty, etc, but is there any evidence that the grit/sand/bull dust in the area effects accuracy or effective range by erroding barrels, or ruining optics, etc?

Or does the routine maintenence they perform make this a non-issue?

 

[SwissArmyDad]

You drive your car to the range. Back up to the benchrest, and carry your 7.62 all of what 5 feet? When you have that thing strapped to you for 7 plus months. You will be begging to get a 5.56. Keep that in mind.

LOL, That's a good point to mention, as is the point also mentioned about having your supply of ammo run out as a 7.62 equipped SDM and not being able to simply turn and ask the person next to you for a mag.

 

[amprecon]

Not really. The discussion about 400+ yards is about lethality in humans, not vehicles. What it takes to penetrate an engine and to kill a human are completely different things.

There was nothing in the ops original post asking specifically about being effective only against humans.

Since it wasn't specified I took the liberty of applying its overall usefulness in battle, which would include engaging all kinds of targets, soft, armored, hardened, concealed or otherwise.

Optics will obviously make engagements at long range easier.

It's effectiveness, at extended range, is reduced as it is with any other caliber.

However, my point is, that there are more effective calibers that maintain more energy at extended ranges than the 5.56 and are more capable against non-soft targets, which occassionaly present themselves.

 

[ROCK6]

I think the .223 has proven to be a decent combat round and with the right set up be accurate out to 500-600 meters. There are some significant open distances over here in Afghanistan and optics are a must out to those ranges. With that said, I'm happy with an M4 inside of 300 meters, but would prefer to have .30 cal or larger for extended ranges. There are some reports of the heavier .223 rounds and their extended range effectiveness, but the majority of ground pounders are still packing 855/62gr ammo.

Every battlefield is different and you need to have a few items in the inventory to compensate. I think the resurgence of the M14 and some limited use of the AR10 variants is a good thing. There are still urban and small village engagements where the M4 is better suited, but units still need the ability to accurately engage out to much great distances. Can a scoped M16A3 reach out to 600 meters? Sure and it will still be effective in the right hands, but those hands should probably have a little more punch at those distances for better and more consistent performance. A very small percentage of riflemen will be able to engage past 400 meters without optics and even though the .223 can be more than accurate enough I just don't think it's the best option at those extended distances.

It would be a waste to stick a .30 cal battle rifle capable of 600+ meters in the hands of every Soldier. Even with optics most are not capable of maximizing that kind of potential. The designated marksman is the best concept; putting those long-range 30 cal rifles in a few hands to augment the firepower of a squad or platoon. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I’ve hunted with an M1A Bush/Scout model and it’s a heavy beast to lug around for hours…if you had to add on an optic, aiming module, and consider the weight of a basic load, it would not be beneficial to all. Different tools for different jobs; for the weight necessary to make a .223 hit effectively out to 600+ meters it would be easier to consider a .308.

ROCK6

 

[MEHavey]

Range/bullet drop is not the issue. (In fact the difference in drop between a 175gr/M14 round and the
M4's 62gr/M855 family round isn't all that different at 500 yards.)

The difference is what happens when the two bullets arrive at that distance. Whether you are trying
to penetrate hard/resistant material, or to yaw & fragment in soft flesh, you need energy at the target.
The chart below gives you some reference points.

Others chime in if they have different data.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

I think the .223 has proven to be a decent combat round and with the right set up be accurate out to 500-600 meters. There are some significant open distances over here in Afghanistan and optics are a must out to those ranges. With that said, I'm happy with an M4 inside of 300 meters, but would prefer to have .30 cal or larger for extended ranges. There are some reports of the heavier .223 rounds and their extended range effectiveness, but the majority of ground pounders are still packing 855/62gr ammo.

Every battlefield is different and you need to have a few items in the inventory to compensate. I think the resurgence of the M14 and some limited use of the AR10 variants is a good thing. There are still urban and small village engagements where the M4 is better suited, but units still need the ability to accurately engage out to much great distances. Can a scoped M16A3 reach out to 600 meters? Sure and it will still be effective in the right hands, but those hands should probably have a little more punch at those distances for better and more consistent performance. A very small percentage of riflemen will be able to engage past 400 meters without optics and even though the .223 can be more than accurate enough I just don't think it's the best option at those extended distances.

It would be a waste to stick a .30 cal battle rifle capable of 600+ meters in the hands of every Soldier. Even with optics most are not capable of maximizing that kind of potential. The designated marksman is the best concept; putting those long-range 30 cal rifles in a few hands to augment the firepower of a squad or platoon. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I’ve hunted with an M1A Bush/Scout model and it’s a heavy beast to lug around for hours…if you had to add on an optic, aiming module, and consider the weight of a basic load, it would not be beneficial to all. Different tools for different jobs; for the weight necessary to make a .223 hit effectively out to 600+ meters it would be easier to consider a .308.

ROCK6

You're saying exactly what those of us that have done know, and those on the internet that have not done will never believe.