Question for those in the military/preferably with combat experience

[Vern Humphrey]

As a company commander in Viet Nam, my policy was an automatic Article 15 (Commanding Officer's Non-judicial Punishment) and a $50 fine for firing full auto.

Okay not to hijack the thread, but if semi-auto is used as often as it is and burst or automatic fire is so rarely employed, then what is the point of having a small caliber round and an assault rifle.

We were ordered to adopt the M16 during the Johnson Administration -- another of Robert MacNamara's brilliant ideas.

To be fair, the modern M16A2/A4 is not the M16A1 of the Viet Nam era. It is a much better, more reliable rifle, with better ammo. (It ought to be, after 40 years of tinkering and modifications!!)

 

[ny32182]

I thought many considered M193 to be more effective against soft targets than M855.

 

[Sam]

It is ttbadboy, much moreso from an M-4.

Sam

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

Several tests have been done by Fackler and the like on the effectiveness of M855 ball as compared to M193. Check out the ammo forum at AR.15.com for the full test and phots and stuff. Basically, the M855, contrary to the rumours, seems to be more effective on both soft and hard targets then the M193. It penetrates better through soft steel due to the steel insert in the bullet, and yet fragments well within the human body.

I've used Sellior and Bellot SS109, which is the NATO designation for the M855 round, on deer on a couple of occasions. Furthest distance to target was 125 yards, roughly. Bullet tore through the shoulder, fragmented in the upper chest, with the core exiting just behind the far shoulder. One shot stop.

Actually though, both M193 and M855 ball really need the additional barrel length of the M16A2-4 to get the necessary velocity for hyperlethality. At lower velocities, the bullet merely plugs a .22 caliber hole right through the target, with no fragmentation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Basically, the M855, contrary to the rumours, seems to be more effective on both soft and hard targets then the M193. It penetrates better through soft steel due to the steel insert in the bullet, and yet fragments well within the human body.

Actually, if you read all of the related studies by Fackler and others on 5.56mm lethality, one thing that pops up is that M855 is only more effective when it fragments. Because M855 is a more complex bullet design (penetrator, lead, jacket) and because the manufacturing standard doesn't specify jacket thickness or other factors, lots of M855 can provide inconsistent performance with some fragmenting well and others not fragmenting at all even when they are travelling at velocities where these rounds normally fragment.

As an added factor, M855 has the same fragmentation floor (2,700-2,500fps) as M193; but because it is a heavier round, it starts at a lower velocity. As a result, M193 will travel further and still be going fast enough to fragment, this issue gets even worse as barrels get shorter.

I've used Sellior and Bellot SS109, which is the NATO designation for the M855 round

Actually SS109 is FNs designation for the type of ammo they designed for SAW use that was subsequently adopted as the standard 5.56mm ammo. However, different NATO nations have different manufacturing standards for SS109 - so while M855 is SS109, not all SS109 (Sellier & Bellot) is equivalent to M855.

One last thing on ballistics, M193 also fails to yaw even when it has sufficient velocity to fragment as often as 15% of the time. One reason match ammo yaws much more consistently than M193 or M855 is because the manufacturing process is more consistent.

 

[1911 guy]

SeaBee71

Charlie company, 23rd Battalion

 

[Commissar Gribb]

airforce... yeah

barely get to hold my service weapon when I deploy- for the amount of time we handle them we might as well not even bring them.