groda
Member
oh god
Rifle Combat at Less than 300 Meters
- Thread starter Timthinker
- Start date
- Status
oh god
Sunray
Member
"...not like there was(sic) battles fought in the deserts of the Middle East and even in Iraq itself..." Where do you think T. E. Lawrence(aka Lawrence of Arabia) was?
The Ottoman Empire, aka Turkey, was part of the Central Powers Alliance. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Baghdad was taken by the British in 1917.
Little or no American involvement though.
The Ottoman Empire, aka Turkey, was part of the Central Powers Alliance. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Baghdad was taken by the British in 1917.
Little or no American involvement though.
To answer your original question, you might have better results if you can find a dedicated "Military Historians" forum.
Seems there are too many shooters and not enough Historians here to help you find what you are looking for.
The other thing you can do is read some books on military rifle design in the 20th Century and look at the references and bibliography. These reports are mentioned and often footnoted in such works and that might help you track down the original reports.
"The Black Rifle" would be a good start, as would anything by Ed Ezell.
"SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon that Never Was" is another good possibility.
I do know that the U.S. wasn't the only country to do studies on rifle effectiveness. I've seen numerous references to a post WWI study conducted by Germany that reached the same conclusions. I have no idea where you would locate that study though.
Seems there are too many shooters and not enough Historians here to help you find what you are looking for.
The other thing you can do is read some books on military rifle design in the 20th Century and look at the references and bibliography. These reports are mentioned and often footnoted in such works and that might help you track down the original reports.
"The Black Rifle" would be a good start, as would anything by Ed Ezell.
"SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon that Never Was" is another good possibility.
I do know that the U.S. wasn't the only country to do studies on rifle effectiveness. I've seen numerous references to a post WWI study conducted by Germany that reached the same conclusions. I have no idea where you would locate that study though.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Sounds like an FBI stat... and it's true. I don't know if those are the exact numbers, but they are close...
MrAcheson
Member
There are a lot of anti-personnel land mines designed after WWII that are meant to wound. They have enough explosive to destroy feet and legs, but not enough for a clean kill.
But rifle designs? You are correct, I've never heard of that or seen it. To my knowledge, most wargaming doesn't even have the sort of methodology necessary for "take two of his buddies out of the fight with him."
Roswell 1847
member
I heard little else in defense of the 5.56 use during the Viet Nam War.
Everytime someone brought up the subject some War dept suit would drag out that old saw from studies done in WW2.
Maybe you guys should look up some of the literature of the time in which arguments for adopting and keeping the M16 were flying fast and hard.
When fighting Civilized Professionals every wounded soldier is given the best treatment possible and resources and personnel are used to transport him away from the front.
Unfortunately when facing enemies that don't have the means to care for their wounded they just leave them behind to die hopefully taking some more folks with him while he's covering their escape.
At the end of WW2 while retreating from the Russians the NAZI actually scuttled a number of river freighters and barges loaded with their own wounded in order to used the remaining land transport for troops that could still fight.
Timthinker
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 815
Trebor, that is excellent advice. I have begun to explore military history forums for the questions I raised on this thread and one on the Garand rifle I started a few days ago. I am beginning to feel like Dr. Frankenstein in that my creation, this particular thread, has assumed a life far beyond my original intentions.
Timthinker
Timthinker
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Roswell 1847 said:
How about a documented example of this since you were unable to provide any documented example of the 5.56 "wounding" theory?
chieftain
Member
Well my experience is artillery has much greater range than small arms fire. Per the fundamentals I was taught, as the enemy comes to you, you engage each weapon at maximum effective range of that weapon. Artillery, mortars, guns, then Rifles, then your 40mm grenades etc. All employed at each weapons maximum effective range. If your weapon and training allow you to, you would hopefully start your rifle engagement at 1200-1000 yards. Or maybe today with the M16 500 yards would be where you begin accurate fire. That is assuming your troops are trained for it.
Why not 500 yards? Because your trucks would be shot to pieces by my folks rifle fire. Make them walk more, keep their support further away.
Of course rake them with your guns, which are area weapons. Can we all say beaten zone? While engaging them with your rifles too. It has historically been a longer range weapon, when the troops were trained to use their weapons at the weapons maximum effective range. Carbines are shorter range weapons. The shorter the barrel length, the shorter the effective range of the weapon.
There is a balance, I would propose 16 inch barrels with the 5.56 NATO Cartridge. That could be argued to as long as 20” to as short as 10”. That is my suggestion 16“.
This is a joke? Right?
Go figure.
Fred
Roswell 1847
member
First off theres probably not anyone who was alive in the 60's that didn't hear the "wounding theory" crap evertime the subject of the .223 cartridge came up. Its one of the most commonly quoted of all time when the subject is rehashed, and as I pointed out it sounds good on paper only.
Now if i have to dig through old history books to provide documented evidence of historical events I may as well open an online school.
Read up on the final days of the German retreat from the Soviets.
I'll waste some time looking for an online site for you if you insist, after which you can provide documentary evidence for every comment you make from now on.
Here you go
You'll find that this was a very well known but seldom talked about incident.
theken206
Member
"I dont see how the war in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan differs."
you cannot be serious
you cannot be serious
Roswell 1847
member
Now to the various wound theories
One or two sites won't give the whole story of course, but thats a pretty good read for a start.
You remember the "Poison Bullet" don't you?
Mujahadin had to be transported over mountain passes into Pakistan for proper treatment of less than lethal hits from the 5.45mm.
Many survived, though no doubt many more did not.
If the Mujahadin fighting units had not been close kin they would have been less likely to have gone to the effort for a stranger, even a fellow fighter. They weren't that caring about fighters from other clans.
Now for a weapon designed to create a maximum number of less than fatal wounds
There were a bunch of less likely to kill weapons tested during that era.
One I liked was a watercooled beltfed .22 magnum for spraying down entrances to camps in case of night attacks.
No single hit was likely to be fatal but chewing up the legs of dozens of enemy at a time was figured to at least send them packing.
The Germans designed and probably used trapguns rigged to the perimeter wire around some camps. It was a fullauto 7.65 ACP caliber with a cross shaped cutter mounted at the muzzle to cut each bullet into four pieces spraying the area where an inmate would be trying to crawl under the wire.
The torn up and bleeding inmate would of course be dragged around the camp as an example before execution.
Several examples of these weapons survived the war, very crude devices.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMMA
One or two sites won't give the whole story of course, but thats a pretty good read for a start.
You remember the "Poison Bullet" don't you?
Mujahadin had to be transported over mountain passes into Pakistan for proper treatment of less than lethal hits from the 5.45mm.
Many survived, though no doubt many more did not.
If the Mujahadin fighting units had not been close kin they would have been less likely to have gone to the effort for a stranger, even a fellow fighter. They weren't that caring about fighters from other clans.
Now for a weapon designed to create a maximum number of less than fatal wounds
There were a bunch of less likely to kill weapons tested during that era.
One I liked was a watercooled beltfed .22 magnum for spraying down entrances to camps in case of night attacks.
No single hit was likely to be fatal but chewing up the legs of dozens of enemy at a time was figured to at least send them packing.
The Germans designed and probably used trapguns rigged to the perimeter wire around some camps. It was a fullauto 7.65 ACP caliber with a cross shaped cutter mounted at the muzzle to cut each bullet into four pieces spraying the area where an inmate would be trying to crawl under the wire.
The torn up and bleeding inmate would of course be dragged around the camp as an example before execution.
Several examples of these weapons survived the war, very crude devices.
Last edited:
TimboKhan
Member
Good points all, but remember we are talking about WWI arty fire, not today. In fact, the paper went on for some time about how poor arty fire was in WWI. It got better as time went by, but at first, it was evidently very, very bad and quite inaccurate.
Your other point about trucks being shot at assumes that the enemy can even see the trucks. Inserting troops as close as possible to the action removes, to a certain degree and depending on the situation, some of the snafus that can occur during an assault over an open field. We don't insert guys directly on top of the action in helicopters, but we sure do drop them as close as possible, as evidenced by helicopters from Vietnam through today getting shot at, and occasionally, down.
Your points are all valid, but I think they are more applicable to todays warfare moreso than WWI, particularly when you mention 40mm grenades, hahaha. That being said, what do I know? I read one article, very quickly, and made some snap judgements. I am a historian, but I am not a military historian!
HorseSoldier
Member
No one is using an ACOG to shoot to 1200 meters in combat. A four power scope helps with target acquisition and PID, but it certainly doesn't help that much. The number of guys making shots in combat at the bottom of the ACOG reticle at 600 is pretty close to negligible, even if you can hit steel at 600 all day long on the range. Despite going in enthusiastically for the issue of the ACOG, the USMC is still the agency that found average engagement range in Iraq was 100 feet (and I don't think anyone else is finding anything much different).
1200 meters is asking a whole lot, even with an SPR with significantly more powerful optics than an ACOG and match grade Mk 262. The SPR has surprisingly long legs, but still . . .
Nope, sorry. I know the Corps is culty about its long range target shooting, but in combat Marines aren't engaging/shooting any further than Army troops. And neither are engaging much at all at ranges beyond 300 with individual rifles/carbines with any frequency, and mostly at much, much closer range. GunTech's point, which I know may be painful to some, is that all the NRA style shooting in the world over nicely mowed grass on a KD range translates to exactly zero improved performance in combat shooting. The only real innovation in small arms training in decades has been to recognize how useless that stuff is and to focus on trying to approximate actual combat conditions -- ranges, stress level, etc. -- as much as possible.
"Blurb in newspaper with no supporting numbers" does not equal "proof." An especially salient issue would be what ranges this alleged rash of head shots occurred at. Making head shots at 50 meters with a four power scope does not mean every Marine is a steely eyed sniper, or that the Corps' insistence guys waste time shooting past 300 meters under sterile range conditions makes much difference in combat.
I can tell you, though, that being involved in training troops on combat marksmanship and having access to actual reports and analysis or such things . . . you're not correct as far as I am aware.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
Like the last story bemoaning how our issue infantry weapon won't shoot through entire buildings or whatever, I'm again puzzled by this apparent strange perception that Marine rifle squads and platoons only carry rifles. There's a reason why we issue a whole range of ordnance to the individual and units, and part of that is because unaimed rifle fire through barriers is wasted bullets. That's why guys have access to grenades, rockets, grenade launchers, and everything else.
Saying "World War II surplus machineguns" and then saying they are trying to get 7.62x54 MGs simply is not the same thing. Like Evil Monkey noted, the RPD is an antique, but several nations are cranking out PK and PKM machineguns even as I type. The bad guys want machineguns for the same reasons everyone wants machineguns -- volume of fire, which compensates well for the utter lack of even basic marksmanship skills for the average jihadi. I've never heard any suggestion that they specifically like MGs so they can chew through walls or whatever . . . which makes sense, when you consider that Iraq is mostly built of reinforced concrete and their buildings soak up small arms ammo whether 5.56mm or 7.62mm pretty easily.
I think you'd do well to look up the literature yourself. Quoting one lone Army researcher as "proof" of something is a bit dubious. I can find a number of reputable PhDs who ardently believe the world is only 5000 years old. This doesn't mean they represent the prevailing scientific opinion.
The adoption of a SCHV assault rifle round was predicated on an intent to improve the lethality of the infantryman on the battlefield. "Designed to wound" is an urban myth that started with troops being nervous about the idea of using a smaller bullet, so the urban myth that "the powers that be have a plan" emerged. It says zero about the actual motivations for adopting the round, but much about the difficulty the average soldier (like most average people in general) have reconciling conventional wisdom to some issue that runs counter to it.
Roswell 1847
member
First off
My comment.
I have no reason to provide supporting documentation for a theory I do not subscribe to.
Ceramic inserts can take one hit and then have to be replaced, multiple hits from high energy rounds at extreme close ranges will break up those plates.
Soft armor that won't defeat an AK round will at least reduce the wounding effect by scrubbing off velocity , the 7.62X54 can lose that much energy and still deliver as much or more energy than an unimpeded AK round.
Cover that stops a 5.56 cold is still within the capability of heavier .30 rounds.
Also if soldiers only shot at those enemy that exposed themselves long enough for a trooper to draw a bead very few of those enemy would ever get shot.
PS
A round through a vital organ can kill regardless. The objections to excessive wounding effects were that wounds to the extremities which put a man out off action anyway would be a great deal more likely to be fatal or permanently disabling causing unnecessary suffering and tying up medical personnel and resources causing even more suffering.
As far back as Sun Tzu the concept that killing the enemy was of less value than forcing him to retreat thereby demoralizing the enemy population was considered valid. Col. Applegate wrote of something along these lines, the demoralizing effect on the civilian population of seeing large numbers of greviously wounded men brought back from the front.
The Jihadi are making great use of just this principle. Random IEDs accomplish nothing in the way of securing a military objective. What they do accomplish is large numbers of injuries to troops. When a soldier dies the population is angry, when a soldier loses his legs the population is disheartened, when a soldier receives a clean wound and is raring to go back into combat the population is inspired by his courage.
This principle doesn't work on the fanatics, They look to veteran amputees as Martyrs and honored warriors, many gain rank due to the badge of honor of a wooden leg or missing hand. This has been a factor in Muslim cultures for over a thousand years.
A similar pyschological effect can be seen in the ranks of professionals of the 19th century. The Legionaires in Mexico swearing an oath to fight to the death on the wooden hand of their commander. Post Civil War Generals often sported wooden legs or hooks. One old CW General became the lover of the Queen of Spain despite having one leg off at the hip.
Now post Documentary evidence that firing a SMAW or similar weapon into the wall and floor of a room you are in to get the guy in the next room is a bright idea.
Also give your reasons for blowing up a room where wounded Marines are trapped.
My comment.
Since the only comment I made on that subject was that it looked good on paper but not in the real world. Just exactly how would that make me a proponent of that theory?
Thats the job of those who believe the theory is still valid.
I have no reason to provide supporting documentation for a theory I do not subscribe to.
I see, you prefer to set off a grenade in the room you are in to try to breech the wall, or would you rather have fired an RPG or SMAW inside that room?
Yep because available stocks of the ready to Hand WW2 surplus won't meet the demand and they've been paying as much for the old stuff as they'd expect to pay for more modern equipment less easily obtained and smuggled in. They'll pay for whatever 7.62X54 or equivalent caliber beltfeed or hicap full auto they can get because it offers them the chance to strike the opponent with a high volume of rounds with high penetration power.
Ceramic inserts can take one hit and then have to be replaced, multiple hits from high energy rounds at extreme close ranges will break up those plates.
Soft armor that won't defeat an AK round will at least reduce the wounding effect by scrubbing off velocity , the 7.62X54 can lose that much energy and still deliver as much or more energy than an unimpeded AK round.
Cover that stops a 5.56 cold is still within the capability of heavier .30 rounds.
Also if soldiers only shot at those enemy that exposed themselves long enough for a trooper to draw a bead very few of those enemy would ever get shot.
PS
A round through a vital organ can kill regardless. The objections to excessive wounding effects were that wounds to the extremities which put a man out off action anyway would be a great deal more likely to be fatal or permanently disabling causing unnecessary suffering and tying up medical personnel and resources causing even more suffering.
As far back as Sun Tzu the concept that killing the enemy was of less value than forcing him to retreat thereby demoralizing the enemy population was considered valid. Col. Applegate wrote of something along these lines, the demoralizing effect on the civilian population of seeing large numbers of greviously wounded men brought back from the front.
The Jihadi are making great use of just this principle. Random IEDs accomplish nothing in the way of securing a military objective. What they do accomplish is large numbers of injuries to troops. When a soldier dies the population is angry, when a soldier loses his legs the population is disheartened, when a soldier receives a clean wound and is raring to go back into combat the population is inspired by his courage.
This principle doesn't work on the fanatics, They look to veteran amputees as Martyrs and honored warriors, many gain rank due to the badge of honor of a wooden leg or missing hand. This has been a factor in Muslim cultures for over a thousand years.
A similar pyschological effect can be seen in the ranks of professionals of the 19th century. The Legionaires in Mexico swearing an oath to fight to the death on the wooden hand of their commander. Post Civil War Generals often sported wooden legs or hooks. One old CW General became the lover of the Queen of Spain despite having one leg off at the hip.
Now post Documentary evidence that firing a SMAW or similar weapon into the wall and floor of a room you are in to get the guy in the next room is a bright idea.
Also give your reasons for blowing up a room where wounded Marines are trapped.
Roswell, your quote does not say anything about wounding vs. killing being a deliberate design function. In fact, it says the opposite, that little attention had been given to wounding effects.
No, you use C4 and saline bags. And yes, you are quite close by when it goes off.
John
No, you use C4 and saline bags. And yes, you are quite close by when it goes off.
John
Roswell 1847
member
So?
Look over my posts and find where I supposedly said it was a Deliberate design Function.
Remember I'm not the one that said the wounding rather than killing was a valid practice in the real world of today.
The DOD Suits are the ones who tried to use the wound rather than kill theory to justify continued use of the M16, not I.
I think someone has had a similar discussion before where the idea of wounding rather than killing was a deliberate design , so someone else here figures to jump in with a pre programed response to an argument that hasn't been made.
And how many times were you machinegunned to death blowing that wall while jihadis poured full auto AP through the wall while you were setting up?
And to repeat there have been firearms designed to wound rather than kill.
how did this go from the difference between average combat range of today and 50 years ago to shooting through walls and the purpose of a rifle and its round?
Last time I checked, new rounds were designed to be as lethal as possible given technological advances and changes in trends. The key word is 'LETHAL'. Just because a 5.56 may wound more often or cause worse wounds doesnt mean that it was meant to just wound someone and let them know that shooting someone isnt nice, because when they say 'wound', they mainly mean 'lethally wound or permanently incapacitate'. Unless we're out there shooting protest signs or greeting cards instead of bullets, the idea in general is to kill someone--one way or the other.
And even though I doubt anyone would ever try blasting through a wall randomly, the ability to do so is nice because it means you can blast through a small brick balcony or fence, or a wall, or a car, or a tree, whatever cover your enemy would be using (either to hit them or scare them out of that position so that you can safely advance or not get shot at yourself). Other than that, I dont see how that subject fits here.
Last time I checked, new rounds were designed to be as lethal as possible given technological advances and changes in trends. The key word is 'LETHAL'. Just because a 5.56 may wound more often or cause worse wounds doesnt mean that it was meant to just wound someone and let them know that shooting someone isnt nice, because when they say 'wound', they mainly mean 'lethally wound or permanently incapacitate'. Unless we're out there shooting protest signs or greeting cards instead of bullets, the idea in general is to kill someone--one way or the other.
And even though I doubt anyone would ever try blasting through a wall randomly, the ability to do so is nice because it means you can blast through a small brick balcony or fence, or a wall, or a car, or a tree, whatever cover your enemy would be using (either to hit them or scare them out of that position so that you can safely advance or not get shot at yourself). Other than that, I dont see how that subject fits here.
HorseSoldier
Member
The actual story being referenced here involved some cornered bad guys shooting up through the floor, and was acknowledged by the embedded reporter to have been something the marines involved had not encountered before. The marines entered the building, took some casualties from the enemy firing blindly through the floor (not a recommended technique unless one is cornered in a crawlspace under a house, and even then still not very effective compared to actually seeing the enemy), and ended up pulling back and waiting for fire support to deal with the house rather than risking additional lives, after making an attempt to recover their two dead.
In other words, outside the one-off of hadjis shooting through the floor, it's about as boring an application of American SOPs going back generations as any I can think of -- WW2 veterans should be equally familiar with the "make contact, employ overwhelming fire power to reduce friendly casualties" approach as anybody out there today. This unusual situation is not illustrative of failings in our weapons systems, or doctrine for that matter. Making a big deal out of an isolated event and arguing it proves some sweeping deficiency in equipment is just a bit over the top, particularly one where a determined enemy ended up taking 100% casualties despite their "it shoots through walls" "fire superiority."
Making mention of an obscure German mechanical ambush design from World War 2 doesn't demonstrate that the American military has ever had an interest in weapons that are intended to wound rather than kill. It actually doesn't even demonstrate that the Germans had any interest in personal weapons intended to wound rather than kill.
Roswell 1847
member
Because if you hadn't noticed most combat at under three hundred yards today involves sturdy third world dwelling of one sort or another and/or barricaded diehards that hope to take you with them.
Chechen volunteers with al-Queda trained as many insurgents as they could in the house to house fighting techniques they'd used so well against the Russians, a number of these Chechen commanders and their comrades proved to be the toughest foes faced in Iraq because they knew their (insert S word) from using those tactics sucessfully against a modern army.
Theres a great deal of difference between long range accurate fire and close range fire against dug in diehards with more powerful rifles and machineguns than you have available, plus grenades and RPG out the ying yang.
Operations were stalled , marines were lost needlessly, and the Jihadis had a few more heroic martyrs.
In another Incident two wounded Marines were pinned inside a building by Jihadis on the roof firing down through a skylight and tossing grenades whever anyone tried to enter. 5.56 bullets wouldn't penetrate the roof under them nor the raised parapet around the roof. A brave Marine Bled out while that situation was finally sorted out.
In another instance a Jihadi with a beltfed machinegun held a Marine he'd wounded pinned down because the angle of fire put the edge of the window frame between him and the bulk of the squad who'd taken cover. The momemt one exposed himself to draw a bead the Machinegunner took his head off. The wall around the window the gunner was in would have been easy to chew through with a .30 without exposing anyone to the gunners kill zone.
People die waiting for rocket launchers and armor to show up.
Actually there were two in the Basement firing up and one or more at the eand of a hall firing through the wall and basement door, the story didn't mention the fire coming through the interior walls. I'll try to find a more complete account later.
And if you think no US Troop had ever encountered similar circumstances you don't know much about house to house fighting. General George Patton wrote a pretty good guide to the subject.
In the history of warfare practically every scenario will be repeated sooner or later, there are no one offs. Firing Blind at a area where you know an enemy to be works often enough that it was standard operating procedure in WW2, troops had to be taught to ignore previous training based on WW2 bolt actions and much more limited ammo supplies. They were encouraged to fire as many rounds as they could at where they believed the enemy to be rather than only at enemy they could see.
As for the trap gun that was just to dispell the idea that no firearm had ever been designed to wound rather than kill.
PS
Couldn't find any instance where I said that wounding rather than killing was deliberate design function of any military rifle in use now did you.
no need to educate me. I've already made posts about the advantages of shorter-ranged, more powerful rifles like AKs here in today's environment, so I agree with you no doubt. Its just that I could have sworn we were arguing the average engagement range for a rifleman a couple pages ago. If not, then I take it thats its been accepted that longer range is not entirely common, needed, nor accurate even with better technology, and that everyone agrees that a more powerful rifle is more suitable given today's infantry combat environment, since most firefights of the sort happen within ranges suitable for a good submachine gun.
The idea that the 5.56 was designed to wound rather than kill has often been discussed, but I cannot find one single shred of evidence in ordnance records of design specs to support that. Indeed, for the last 10 years I have challenged anyone to find said evidence with no result.
Here are some salient facts.
The idea of a small caliber high velocity round stems from Donald Halls "An effectiveness study of the infantry rifle" where he estimated that a SCHV round would have the same potential to produce a casualty as the then current 30 caliber rifle ammunition.
The 5.56 projectile designed by ArmaLite - specifically Stoner - was simply a scaled down 30 caliber bullet. The fact that it produced superior lethality was mere serendipity.
As far as effectiveness, after action reports from Vietnam showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more lethal than the 7.62x51mm. This was do to the performance of the 5.56 bullet in tissue. While the 7.62 tends to go through the target with little deformation, the 5.56 (at shorter ranges typical of jungle combat) tended to fracture at the canneleur, producing several submunitions.
M855 5.56x45mm
M43 7.62x39mm
M80 7.62x51mm
Here are some salient facts.
The idea of a small caliber high velocity round stems from Donald Halls "An effectiveness study of the infantry rifle" where he estimated that a SCHV round would have the same potential to produce a casualty as the then current 30 caliber rifle ammunition.
The 5.56 projectile designed by ArmaLite - specifically Stoner - was simply a scaled down 30 caliber bullet. The fact that it produced superior lethality was mere serendipity.
As far as effectiveness, after action reports from Vietnam showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more lethal than the 7.62x51mm. This was do to the performance of the 5.56 bullet in tissue. While the 7.62 tends to go through the target with little deformation, the 5.56 (at shorter ranges typical of jungle combat) tended to fracture at the canneleur, producing several submunitions.
M855 5.56x45mm
M43 7.62x39mm
M80 7.62x51mm
- Status
Similar threads
