M16\M4 Performance in Iraq

[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

 

[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.

Ever hear the saying of the pot calling....

no nevermind I am going to be nice.

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?

 

[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