Hmm...the PAGST vest that is being phased out has no fiberglass plates, and while not rated to stop any direct fire weapons, testing has shown it's about equivilent to level II body armor, proof against many handgun rounds and buckshot.
I have shot through those vests at 25 yards with buck before no problem!
Could be why they aren't issued anymore. Those old flak vests were designed to stop the biggest killer on the battlefield, the oddly shaped missles created when shells burst. They lose their velocity quickly and are relatively easy to to stop. They were never meant to be proof against direct fire weapons.
As for body armor, class 4 will pretty much stop multiple rounds of any small arms caliber.
This is true, so lets add level 4 body armor to the load your ideal infantry squad carries. Another 15 or so pounds??
So you’d be making head shots anyway (easier with buck) not to mention that buck has an easier chance of finding a nick in the armor than a rifle round.
Patterned your shotgun lately? My Benelli M121 M1 is tight enough at 25 yards that I have to aim to hit the head just like I do with my M4. Past 25 yards and I have to aim more carefully to make sure I get enough pellets into the head to be assured of a disabling hit. In the SWAT raid example you used, the ranges are so close that the pattern would have been about as big as the bore, so chances are a rifle or handgun aimed the same way would have found the opening in the body armor.
I know of SWAT raids where officers were lost to perps with shotguns and buckshot.
Officers have been lost to .22 short. But should that mean we should depend on it for defensive use?
Besides, do you really know many third world countries which issue out body armor, or even flak vests for that matter?
So you are saying that the only threat our military will face will be a third world country?
This is pure foolishness. Combat experience from VETS proves otherwise, the M855 rounds is one of the worst rounds there is! Heck, most of the times it zips right through baddies, anybody remember Blackhawk down?
And you know this how? What patch is on your right shoulder? Ahh...
Black Hawk Down and the now famous passage about how SFC Paul Howe was experiencing frustration over his inabilty to knock Somalis down with his M4. Yep it's proof positive that M855 is worthless. Did you read the whole book? Because if that passage is proff positive that the M16 and M855 are worthless, then what does this passage say about the M60 and your beloved 7.62x51?
Black Hawk Down Atlantic Monthly Press, First Edition pp 45-46
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.
To me all this proves is that men can be hard to kill. But by your logic we have just condemned the 7.62x51 to the scrapheap of failed, ineffective cartridges. If you go to member Shawn Dodson's excellent Firearmstactical site, you can find a link to Dr. Martin Faclker's tests of most modern military rounds. And yes those tests did conclude that M855 had better terminal effects then US M80 7.62x51 ball. The top performer in 7.62x51 is a West German load. Of course this is just science, anecdotes and someones unscientific observations in a firefight didn't figure into it.
Oh right, that’s why all the VETS who were forced to give up their M14s for the mighty mattel still complain today about that POS weapon! Regaurdless of expectations, the M14 rarely failed to perform, unlike the M16 which was jamming up at the worst possible moments, getting soldiers killed as a result because their guns would not fire.
Again Blain, what is your personal combat experience with the M14/M16? No one is denying that the way the military chose to field the M16 was a hosed up mess. The problems it had were not anything that was wrong with the design. Every problem it had could be traced to lack of training and lack of cleaning equipment. The logistics system failed those soldiers and Marines,
NOT Eugene Stoner or Colts. If the weapons had been issued with cleaning equipment and there had been NET (New Equipment Training) like we do today you would not have seen the problems that happened. Someone should have gone to prison for the way the M16 was
fielded.
Given it's relatively short service life, the number of vets you'll find who actually used on in combat is going to be pretty small. There is certainly going to be many more vets, myself included, who have much more experience with the M16 series.
To address Sir Galahad's comments from the other thread. As a 45B, small arms repairman, he would have worked at a Direct Support maintenance shop or higher level of maintenance. He may even have worked at a training center where thousands of weapons were given very heavy use. I don't know, perhaps he'll chime in and tell us. But he would have only seen the rifles that were beyond the unit armorer's capability to repair. I don't know what the manual said in those days, but the current TM 9-1005-319-23&P says that you never loosen the barrel nut to align the gas tube. The current TM authorizes the repairman to slightly over torque the barrel nut to align the gas tube.
And his experiences with the weapon or more valid then mine? Why, because they reinforce a legend that you choose to believe? What part of his post invalidates my observations of the old M16A1s in use in the Honduran Army?
Yes the light M16A1 barrel did shoot out fast when heated up with a lot of full auto fire. But name me one assault rifle that doesn't. The M14E2 wasn't in service long enough to even make a valid comparison on how long it's barrels lasted. Heat destroys a barrel and full auto fire generates a lot of heat. I have heard a rumor that I can't verify so it will forever remain a rumor, that the addition of the full heavy barrel to the M4A1 is a direct result of an ODA expending ammunition at the end of a training cycle and then submitting a QDR (Quality Deficiency Report) to cover their butts for burning out several new M4A1s. I don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible, knowing how weapons are treated in the military.
As for the original post in the M16/M4 performance in Iraq thread, that may be one X-ray techs perspective but it flys in the face of my own personal experience as an Infantryman for 21 years serving in every position in a rifle platoon. Again, is it more valid then mine and other vets experiences because it reinforces your point of view?
Jeff
