Soldier's .223 complaints

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chrome

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
263
Location
Morgantown, WV
Seems like the army is starting to listen to their troops.

Chief of staff: Army reviewing complaints over bullets

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 16 minutes ago

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.

Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.

"To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed."

But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.

"I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said.

The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away. Some soldiers said that they are not large enough to stop an enemy immediately in close quarters.

Casey said the military has been evaluating its equipment and practices since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"Technology is pulling us, and what we're learning on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pushing us," he said.
Click to expand...

Later,
Chrome...
 
It's About Time

From what I understand the troops have been complaning about the stopping power of the 5.56mm round since before Iraq.
 
Soldiers complain. It's a required MOS in and of itself and every swingin' Richard is more than adequately cross trained in this vital battlefield skill. The training begins the moment they step off the bus.

Biker
 
223 vs. 7.62.

You decide:

[noparse] http://www.theothersideofkim.com/images/uploads/2005files/223Rem_x_762Russian.JPG [/noparse]

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 223Rem_x_762Russian.JPG
    223Rem_x_762Russian.JPG
    16.8 KB · Views: 203
Last edited by a moderator:
Hasn't the UK been using the 5.56mm in combat in Afghanistan? How is it working for them? I believe Canada and possibly Germany have also used this round in combat. Do they have the same complaints regarding effectiveness?
 
In all fairness has there ever been a rifle/round that everyone loved?

I know the M1 Garand was well loved, but then why did many solders also carry M1 carbines if the Garand was the end all.

Sense i have never fought a war with a M1 garand, carbine, m16, 03 Springfield, or m14 i will let those who fight answer not arm chair generals.
 
1911Tuner, so then if rifles that have high stopping power tend to weigh more, and every one then carries lighter less powerful rifle/rounds.

Which is better? it seems that you cant have it both ways with modern military weapon selection?
 
Obviously our scientists aren't working hard enough on laser technology if we're still discussing weight vs. power.
 
M855
Click to expand...
THAT is the problem!

The M16 system was designed for a tumble-and-fragment-on-contact bullet, not a go-straight-thru bullet.

Why is the military issuing hard-target ammo for soft-target applications???
Why do people keep using the system outside of its as-designed operating parameters, and then are surprised that the results don't measure up?
 
ctdonath said:
THAT is the problem!

The M16 system was designed for a tumble-and-fragment-on-contact bullet, not a go-straight-thru bullet.
Click to expand...

I thought M855 was a tumble-and-fragment-on-contact bullet, as long as you've got it going fast enough - which is hard to do with a short barreled M4.
 
Maybe a new load should be developed for the 14.5" M4 that will burn all powder in said barrel length and allow the 5.56mm projectile to perform "as advertised".
 
Which is better?
Click to expand...

Flip a coin.

It seems that you cant have it both ways with modern military weapon selection?
Click to expand...

Ain't much that ya can have both ways.

When the Army decided to revamp Stoner's rifle, starting with a powder change...to gain 50 fps in velocity... that resulted in fouled gas systems, jammed rifles, and dead men...and failing that...redoubled their efforts and tightened up the twist rate so that the rifle could shoot tighter groups in the Arctic...even though we were involved in a war in the tropics...they reduced the effectiveness and the lethality of the rifle by about 60%.

So they decided that what they needed was the ability to punch through Soviet steel pots at 600 yards...(SIX HUNDRED YARDS!?!)...and again tightened up the twist rate and went with a longer, heavier bullet...which is now overstablized...which reduced the velocity needed to let the bullet yaw.

And now...they've decided to take the complaints under advisement.

And they wonder why we say that Military Intelligence is an oxymoron.

:rolleyes:
 
Ok say they did switch to the 7.62 round there will problems with that too. Weight of rifle, weight of ammo, recoil of rifle, ect. I think the main problem is the fact that our military forces are limited to ONLY using FMG ammo. No expanding, hollow points, or fragible ammo can be used in warfare according to the Geneva Convention. When said limitations where placed on ammo it was way back in the day when medical science was decades behind what it is now and yes bullets that acted like minibombs dispursing shrapnel into the body was scary and extremely hard to treat back in the day and would have lead to a higher casualty rate on all sides of a conflict. But its over 50 years later and things need to change. I say dont drop the m16 and the 5.56 mm round (because logistically to replace all service weapons with 7.62mm weapons would be a nightmare also) but find a way to amend the Geneva Convention to allow hollow points, expanding bullets, and fragible rounds.

P.S. the .233 photo with the 7.62 may be a bit misleading. I though the 5.56 round had a fatter casing (more powder than .223, same round diameter ) Correct me if im wrong though.
 
Why is the military issuing hard-target ammo for soft-target applications???
Click to expand...
I figured it was a logistics issue to just use M855 instead of M193 also.
All that's needed is a 5lb gun with the ballistics of a 7mm mag, recoil of a 5.56, accuracy of a 6mmBR, and a 10" barrel, is that too much to ask? :neener:
 
DoubleTapDrew said:
All that's needed is a 5lb gun with the ballistics of a 7mm mag, recoil of a 5.56, accuracy of a 6mmBR, and a 10" barrel, is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

You forgot the trajectory of a laser beam, the noise of an air rifle, and the price of a squirt gun.
 
I think a round somewhere between the essentially .22 caliber 5.56x45 and ..30 caliber 7.62x39 would benefit in this environment. A .260 maybe? If I had to choose between the 5.56 and 7.62 I would take the 7.62 in a heartbeat.
 
alledgedly the soviets doubled the number of svds,and issued a larger scope in afganistan. too many folks shooting at them with .303.
 
JesseL said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleTapDrew
All that's needed is a 5lb gun with the ballistics of a 7mm mag, recoil of a 5.56, accuracy of a 6mmBR, and a 10" barrel, is that too much to ask?

You forgot the trajectory of a laser beam, the noise of an air rifle, and the price of a squirt gun.
Click to expand...

I'll take ten, hell make it a hundred.
 
No matter what bullet the military uses soldiers will moan about it. As stated before it is part of every MOS to complain about your gear. I know lots of soldiers who can carry just about any kind of weapon they want and most still prefer the M4 or some variation of it. In my experience soldiers tend to think the know much more about ballistics than they actually do. When the 101st showed up in Iraq with shotguns all the talk in the dinning facility was how much everyone wished they could carry one. No thought to the aditional weight and limited applications. Sure enough when some of us started carrying AK's everyone wanted one. Most soldiers doing the type of fighting as described by the article are going to be infantry or infantry related. The average age for infantry soldiers? Last I checked was under 21 years of age. So if you ask these soldiers what they want to carry don't be surprised when many will say desert eagles and mp5's. :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
zulu6
Z
M
  • Locked
Soldiers Lack New Body Armor
Replies
0
Views
621
Mark Tyson
M
W
  • Locked
Associated press article on 5.56 cartridge
Replies
17
Views
927
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
D
  • Locked
Many Iraqi soldiers wounded by own guns
Replies
13
Views
996
Crosshair
C
Mainsail
  • Locked
"Somehow it went off"
Replies
24
Views
2K
91Bravo
9
Back
Top