M16\M4 Performance in Iraq

[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!

 

[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. 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.

 

[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!"




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. .

Jeff

 

[JShirley]

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! )

 

[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

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.

 

[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...

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.