"Small Caliber Leathality" or Why .223 Doesn't Suck
- Thread starter Blind Bat
- Start date
- Status
HorseSoldier
Member
It is if you're trying to engage multiple targets.
mljdeckard
Member
And if your soldiers are too small to handle an M-14 properly at all in the first place.
Quickill
Member
Now I don't want to cast dispersions on any female or smaller stature person in service to the military or law enforcement, but I hate this type of logic.
I don't believe that we should downgrade our weaponry, ammunition, anything; just so a small percentage of our population can play along. I had always thought that the military or LE was designed to filter out those that could not handle that job and place them where they could best support those that could.
Again, I am not trying to put anybody down but, I think we should give the soldier or police officer the best tools available and if not everyone can handle them effectively, tough, your not cut out for the job, that's life.
HorseSoldier
Member
Even if we ignore the various aspects of the 7.62x51 round that make it far from ideal for a service rifle cartridge downrange on actual battlefields, the unsuitability of 7.62x51 for intensive training aimed at producing high levels of skills for CQC range shooting (where almost all combat actually takes place) is not just limited to tiny female soldiers. I've done lots of training days where I shot 500+ rounds of 5.56mm, in some cases for days on end, and there isn't a whole lot of decline in training value from the beginning of the day or week to the end of it (or if there is it's not based on the weapons being fired, but on the heat or physicality of the training events, etc.).
Most of the guys who advocate 7.62x51 as a service rifle cartridge have never fired 500 or more rounds per day through their "main battle rifles" or whatever. On a couple of occasions, I have done flat range training with 7.62x51 guns shooting those kinds of round counts doing various combat marksmanship drills, and the simple reality is that however much of a hairy chested manly man you are about recoil when touching off that first round, your shoulder eventually gets turned into hamburger and the weapon system itself starts detracting from the training value.
We live in a world of finite resources, including range time, and that means it's going to be much harder to build shooting skills and muscle memory to employ the weapon effectively (again, ignoring the aspects of the round itself that limit its effective employment) when you can't get as much out of a training/range day.
If each dead or incapacited bad guy is the end result of a chain of events starting with target acquisition, leading to target engagement, and ending with terminal ballistic effects of the bullet(s) on him, the data from the real world is that the last part isn't the weak link in the chain. Poke a hole or two in a guy's thoracic cavity and he tends to check out of the fight, whatever size those holes are. Actually getting the holes punched in his chest in the first place is the weak point -- and adopting a caliber to fix a less broken part of the equation that is guaranteed to worsen the really broken part is just a big (and literal) step backwards.
A friend of mine, a Vietnam vet, his son is in Iraq. I met his son. Son is a "Battalion Scout Sniper".
Son stated that he does not like using the .223 on targets more than 100 yards away, because "they don't stay down".
He is very positive about the effects of the 308, out to 200 yards, which is the limit in a big city.
The .223 sucks so bad that the Army is issuing 77 SMK's, a hollow point bullet, to increase the lethality of the round.
Back in the 60's, the proponents of the .223 were declaring the round was decapitating VC’s. Go read this in the 1964 Gun Digest.
Bigger is always better, the real issue is whether smaller is as good as bigger.
Son stated that he does not like using the .223 on targets more than 100 yards away, because "they don't stay down".
He is very positive about the effects of the 308, out to 200 yards, which is the limit in a big city.
The .223 sucks so bad that the Army is issuing 77 SMK's, a hollow point bullet, to increase the lethality of the round.
Back in the 60's, the proponents of the .223 were declaring the round was decapitating VC’s. Go read this in the 1964 Gun Digest.
Bigger is always better, the real issue is whether smaller is as good as bigger.
HorseSoldier
Member
Mk 262 is not a hollow point round, it's an open tip match (OTM) round with a standard, full-length lead bullet that features a pinhole in the nose because the jacket is applied base-to-nose rather than the more usual nose-to-base.
Also, Mk 262 is not in general issue use at all, even in SOF units most of the 5.56mm ammo being shot is standard green tip.
Quickill
Member
HorseSoldier
I was not trying to insinuate that only "manly men" can handle training or recoil and the like. I was simpley trying to state that it should not enter the equation. I think 7.62 NATO has it's limitations as does 5.56. I simply wish to say we should look for what works best. If you start with that, the rest will work out.
Unfortunately, we never even try to look for the best, just "what works".
I was not trying to insinuate that only "manly men" can handle training or recoil and the like. I was simpley trying to state that it should not enter the equation. I think 7.62 NATO has it's limitations as does 5.56. I simply wish to say we should look for what works best. If you start with that, the rest will work out.
Unfortunately, we never even try to look for the best, just "what works".
Some here should remember how many times during the Vietnam war, the military said “the tide is turning”, “light is at the end of the tunnel”, “victory is at hand”. Didn’t we loose that war, too?
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf
What a wonderful self serving summary. Here are two Major General Wanabee’s writing just how wonderful are the current issue arms and ammunition. What do you think would happed to MG Wannabees if they, representatives of the Army, put something out in public release that said “Snuffy, your ammo is garbage, and nothing can improve it” ?
I don't think it would have gotten published for one thing.
Don’t believe anything put out by the military industrial complex.
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf
What a wonderful self serving summary. Here are two Major General Wanabee’s writing just how wonderful are the current issue arms and ammunition. What do you think would happed to MG Wannabees if they, representatives of the Army, put something out in public release that said “Snuffy, your ammo is garbage, and nothing can improve it” ?
I don't think it would have gotten published for one thing.
Don’t believe anything put out by the military industrial complex.
Float Pilot
Member
No we did not. It was won on the battle field. It was surrendered by a Democrat congress and a bunch of pro-commie aggitators.
If you read the writing of all the communist leaders from the north (the enemy) they will affirm that they were on the ropes and crushed as an effective fighting force.
They were very surprised by how effective the communist backed protest, implanted red journalist and cowardly politicians in North America and Europe saved their bacon.
black_powder_Rob
Member
My caliber is smaller than yours! 
Paladin_Hammer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 137
The simple fact of the matter is that in most states it wasn't all to long ago that the .223 Remingtion cartridge was BANNED for use in hunting White-tail deer because conservation departments nation-wide found the round lacked sufficient power to drop a deer in one shot. The newer, heavier rounds just barely meet standards to do so. Ask anyone who ever served in Veitnam, the 5.56 isn't a killing machine, its an accuracy machine. Hell, I haven't met a guy at the VFW in Kearney, MO, who said he thought he could kill someone with the 5.56 without hitting a vital part.
Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
First off, MISSING with a 5.56? Maybe if the guy never shot before, but Marines and Army grunts these days are held to a high standard with their rifles. This isn't the day of the M1 Carbine, and these aren't AK-47's. Their M16s and M4s. These rifles are used in competitions all over the states because its hard NOT to hit something.
Second, a "good hit", you probably mean one to a vital. I'd like to see anyone in the face of danger stop and think about the shot he's making. Generally, you get your rifle on target and shoot.
Thirdly, you compare our men in Iraq and Afghanistan to kids? These guys don't go through over 6 months of training to think that their rifles have Hollywood's physics defying bullets in it. These aren't morons, their soldiers. You should think a little better of them.
Fourthly, getting shot in the body and having the bullet go straight through you IS NOT something you should survive, grace of god or otherwise. You shoot anyone in the body with a rifle caliber .303, .308, .270, or other caliber bigger than .22 (by at least .05 inches), and they WILL go down. The heavier bullet means it can store more energy, which in turn causes greater injury to the target upon impact. It's simple physics. If I threw a pen at you, you'd be a little agitated. Now, if I threw a rock at you, you'd bleed or have a broke bone. If I hit you with a car doing 40 mph or more, you'd probably be dead. Just use your common sense.
The reason you don't hear high praise of the .223 at Veterans Associations is because in combat, your best hope of getting a killing shot is to place one in the head or heart (or other vital organ). The reason it was unavailable for hunting purposes for years is because it lacked sufficient energy and mass to drop a deer in one shot if you didn't hit vitals.
The 7.62x39mm has been used for hunting since its appearance in the North American market because it retains the energy and has the mass to kill, within its ranges (usually that is 100 meters to 150 meters, depending on the weight and powder load). The reason the .270 Winchester is such a better killer is because it bullet's weight is enough that once combined with speed is enough to break bones and stop hearts upon impact. Hell, I shot my first buck with a .270, in the NECK, missed every vital part in said area, but the shear force of the round hitting the deer caused the wind pipe to rupture and tear open. I hunt with the 7.62x39 now (damn the price of .270), and I've got one doe, a shot to the upper back, the bullet missing the spinal cord directly (a little low). However, the hit itself causes the poor things back to break, and upon inspection I found that I'd broke a rib and that in turn cut into its chest organs, making the process of getting the organs out a real pain in the ass. But it did the job.
I've never seen anyone bring down a deer with a .223 in one shot who didn't end up chasing it all over the place. It can be done, but your pressing the limits of the cartridges design by using heavier bullets.
Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
First off, MISSING with a 5.56? Maybe if the guy never shot before, but Marines and Army grunts these days are held to a high standard with their rifles. This isn't the day of the M1 Carbine, and these aren't AK-47's. Their M16s and M4s. These rifles are used in competitions all over the states because its hard NOT to hit something.
Second, a "good hit", you probably mean one to a vital. I'd like to see anyone in the face of danger stop and think about the shot he's making. Generally, you get your rifle on target and shoot.
Thirdly, you compare our men in Iraq and Afghanistan to kids? These guys don't go through over 6 months of training to think that their rifles have Hollywood's physics defying bullets in it. These aren't morons, their soldiers. You should think a little better of them.
Fourthly, getting shot in the body and having the bullet go straight through you IS NOT something you should survive, grace of god or otherwise. You shoot anyone in the body with a rifle caliber .303, .308, .270, or other caliber bigger than .22 (by at least .05 inches), and they WILL go down. The heavier bullet means it can store more energy, which in turn causes greater injury to the target upon impact. It's simple physics. If I threw a pen at you, you'd be a little agitated. Now, if I threw a rock at you, you'd bleed or have a broke bone. If I hit you with a car doing 40 mph or more, you'd probably be dead. Just use your common sense.
The reason you don't hear high praise of the .223 at Veterans Associations is because in combat, your best hope of getting a killing shot is to place one in the head or heart (or other vital organ). The reason it was unavailable for hunting purposes for years is because it lacked sufficient energy and mass to drop a deer in one shot if you didn't hit vitals.
The 7.62x39mm has been used for hunting since its appearance in the North American market because it retains the energy and has the mass to kill, within its ranges (usually that is 100 meters to 150 meters, depending on the weight and powder load). The reason the .270 Winchester is such a better killer is because it bullet's weight is enough that once combined with speed is enough to break bones and stop hearts upon impact. Hell, I shot my first buck with a .270, in the NECK, missed every vital part in said area, but the shear force of the round hitting the deer caused the wind pipe to rupture and tear open. I hunt with the 7.62x39 now (damn the price of .270), and I've got one doe, a shot to the upper back, the bullet missing the spinal cord directly (a little low). However, the hit itself causes the poor things back to break, and upon inspection I found that I'd broke a rib and that in turn cut into its chest organs, making the process of getting the organs out a real pain in the ass. But it did the job.
I've never seen anyone bring down a deer with a .223 in one shot who didn't end up chasing it all over the place. It can be done, but your pressing the limits of the cartridges design by using heavier bullets.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Rapid, well-aimed single shots are the best suppressive fire. The trick is to understand the target -- I used an exercise where I would have my NCOs put out C-ration boxes in a tactical layout, then have two poles, one on either side of the target area, marking the limits.
A squad would take position and guide two assistant instructors as they raised or lowered a strip of Engineer tape on the poles, forming a horizontal line. When the troops agreed there could be no enemy below that line, they did the same with another tape. The troops signaled when they agreed there could be no enemy above that line.
For troops in a tactical position, the two tapes are very close together. We would then fill the "box" formed by the two tapes and two poles with rapid, but aimed shots.
Once troops learn to visualize things like this, defining a target area, and methodically shooting it up, their combat effectiveness goes way up.
black_powder_Rob
Member
yep Vern, used the same tactic when playing paint ball. thats why i posted my original coment. 
HorseSoldier
Member
The four points he raised are a pretty accurate summation of reality, actually.
Accuracy even among very well trained troops drops to next to nothing when it's done for real under life and death stress with rounds coming in as well as going out.
"Good COM hit" = "Good center of mass hit" = "one to a vital."
The idea is that through sheer repetition and extensive training you build muscle memory and instinct to get guys to make fast shots at the target's COM/thoracic cavity. With any caliber this is the best compromise of speed, accuracy and terminal effects.
The guy whose post you're replying to is a soldier.
Having also been one for 15 years, I can personally say you'd probably be surprised what soldiers think on a lot of things. In regards to this particular topic, I can say I've met lots of guys whose pre-combat expectations of weapons performance and experience of real traumatic injuries are limited to Hollywood and video games. I've also met some guys with combat tours (who weren't in particularly gunslinger-ish duty positions) whose expectations and experience weren't much different.
Actual evidence from the battlefield would indicate this simply is not true. As C-Grunt said, people can sometimes be bizarrely and remarkably hard to kill.
The key to doing so is actually having the mindset, tools, and ability to put multiple rounds into the target and inflict however much trauma is needed to kill them or take them out of the fight. Anything else goes back into those unrealistic expectations of weapons performance (which can apply to .30 caliber firearms just as easily as 5.56mm ones).
Pretty much every study conducted in the last several decades has actually concluded that wound ballistics are only partially related the simple physics, so the examples are pretty provided are pretty irrelevant.
For whatever reason(s), actually one tends to mostly hear complaints about the M16 and its ammunition from Vietnam era guys (and not all of them -- mostly just guys who were there when the M16's reliability issues were going on), and very little complaint about either from guys who've carried the weapon and ammo in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Military issue 7.62x39 ammunition has a well documented reputation for poor wounding potential and inadequate terminal ballistic performance.
I suppose our perspectives may be different since I don't know many people who've hunted deer with 5.56mm, but do know several who've killed or critically wounded jihadis with single hits to the torso from 5.56mm carbines.
mljdeckard
Member
I would never tell my soldiers. female and petite or otherwise, to shoot anything ONCE. I would prefer that they not engage it at all. That's why we take infantry escorts. I would prefer that they call in indirect fire. But the reason they carry a rifle at all is in case they DO need to use it, and when that happens, it better be one that they can use effectively.
If we switched back to a heavy battle rifle, we would have to revert to older rifle training programs, basically what the Marines are doing now, extending training, costing more, and then you would have a whole generation of soldiers complaining about how much better they could shoot with the M-16, and how much they hate carrying the new rifle.
Soldiers will always complain. It's what they do.
"I don't believe that we should downgrade our weaponry, ammunition, anything; just so a small percentage of our population can play along. I had always thought that the military or LE was designed to filter out those that could not handle that job and place them where they could best support those that could.
Again, I am not trying to put anybody down but, I think we should give the soldier or police officer the best tools available and if not everyone can handle them effectively, tough, your not cut out for the job, that's life."
My soldiers aren't playing anything. They are among the best in the world at their job. You are glad they are doing it. The reality of this army, this war, this globe, and this enemy, is that we need people who can get paid for what they do from the neck up. NOT JUST THE NECK DOWN.
If we switched back to a heavy battle rifle, we would have to revert to older rifle training programs, basically what the Marines are doing now, extending training, costing more, and then you would have a whole generation of soldiers complaining about how much better they could shoot with the M-16, and how much they hate carrying the new rifle.
Soldiers will always complain. It's what they do.
"I don't believe that we should downgrade our weaponry, ammunition, anything; just so a small percentage of our population can play along. I had always thought that the military or LE was designed to filter out those that could not handle that job and place them where they could best support those that could.
Again, I am not trying to put anybody down but, I think we should give the soldier or police officer the best tools available and if not everyone can handle them effectively, tough, your not cut out for the job, that's life."
My soldiers aren't playing anything. They are among the best in the world at their job. You are glad they are doing it. The reality of this army, this war, this globe, and this enemy, is that we need people who can get paid for what they do from the neck up. NOT JUST THE NECK DOWN.
The .223 is an effective cartridge. The 7.62x39 is an effective cartridge. The .223 has a clear advantage in weight and trajectory over the 7.62, while the 7.62 has a small edge in "stopping power" and penetration.
Also important in the discussion is delivery method. The AK is reliable as the sun coming up in the morning, but any hit beyond 100 yards is pure luck or spray and pray. The AR platform is more finicky, but a good hit at 300 yards or more is completely reasonable.
If I am assaulting a vehicle, heavily wooded area, or tiny space, give me the AK...for anything else, I will prefer the AR.
For all the cartridge arguing going on, both of these rounds are lethal and effective, pick the platform you like the best and go with it.
Also important in the discussion is delivery method. The AK is reliable as the sun coming up in the morning, but any hit beyond 100 yards is pure luck or spray and pray. The AR platform is more finicky, but a good hit at 300 yards or more is completely reasonable.
If I am assaulting a vehicle, heavily wooded area, or tiny space, give me the AK...for anything else, I will prefer the AR.
For all the cartridge arguing going on, both of these rounds are lethal and effective, pick the platform you like the best and go with it.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
You should think a little better of them.
Your arguing with "them". I agree with almost all Horse Soldier is posting.
Your arguing with "them". I agree with almost all Horse Soldier is posting.
Lucky
Member
I'm no expert either, but I read Fackler (expert) say that the Stockton California shooting proves 7.62x39 is not one of the most effective calibers, while it proves 12ga buck is one. He even says military FMJ bullets are purposely less lethal, which everyone agrees they are, and the side-benefit (oft stated elsewhere) is that wounded require more resources than dead.
But isn't the point irrelevant? There's a lot of posts talking about lethal and survivable. Do people really worry about 'killing'? Or do they just want to make the other guy stop what he's doing, right now. That might be a harder standard to measure, but it sure makes more sense to me. You could put cyanide on your .22LR if you wanted to 'kill'. A sniper who posts elsewhere said he'd seen people shot COM at a distance with 5.56 and they did stop, but then started again after a bit. While people 1st-hand seen shot with 7.62x51 stopped and did not resume their activities. His sample size was small, but sure makes sense.
For the dual reasons that it more accurately describes the consequences intended, and it sounds more academic, I think writing 'stopping' or such is better than 'killing'.
And +1 for not wanting to be shot with anything at all.
But isn't the point irrelevant? There's a lot of posts talking about lethal and survivable. Do people really worry about 'killing'? Or do they just want to make the other guy stop what he's doing, right now. That might be a harder standard to measure, but it sure makes more sense to me. You could put cyanide on your .22LR if you wanted to 'kill'. A sniper who posts elsewhere said he'd seen people shot COM at a distance with 5.56 and they did stop, but then started again after a bit. While people 1st-hand seen shot with 7.62x51 stopped and did not resume their activities. His sample size was small, but sure makes sense.
For the dual reasons that it more accurately describes the consequences intended, and it sounds more academic, I think writing 'stopping' or such is better than 'killing'.
And +1 for not wanting to be shot with anything at all.
C-grunt
Member
Ok first off just to let you know, my screen name stands for Charlie company Grunt. I got that because I spent my 4 years active duty in the Army in 2nd platoon C company 1/30 Infantry Battalion 3rd Brigade 3rd ID.
I was a SAW gunner during the initial invasion into Iraq and saw my fair share of combat there. During my second tour in 05 I was stationed at FOB Normandy near the Iran border. Only a few firefights there as the insurgents got their butts kicked big time when they tried that crap. LOTS of IEDs though. Most of my Command staff, ie 1st Seargent, CO, LTs and what not came from the Ranger Batts. My last 1st Sgt was with the 10th mntn unit that rescued the guys from the wholw Black Hawk Down fiasco. I NEVER ever ever heard anyone say anything about the lack of lethality of the 5.56. -in my unit-
Hell, in 05 we even had a SF group on our FOB with us. I got to know them as we played video games together. All of them carried M4s and !!!gasp!!!
Beretta 92s. Well one guy did have a nice 1911 and the sniper had a sweet custom 300 win mag. I asked them about there load outs and what they have experienced and you know what they said? "If your aim is good, it doesnt really matter what you use. We use the M4 because its light, accurate and can be replaced easily if damaged. The Berettas are accurate and hold a lot of rounds. If Im low on ammo I can get some from your unit."....This is coming from some bad a** dudes right there. Scary good.
Now to tell the truth, before I went to combat I was a big skeptic of the 5.56. Hell I even went further and said we should all be shooting 7mm Rem Mags. After my experiences out in the desert I am a HUGE 5.56 fan. That doesnt mean I dislike the 7.62. In 05 I was a Humvee gunner as well and preferred the M240B even over the .50 M2.
C-grunt
Member
As to my last statement in my original post about some people being extremely lucky and living through things they shouldnt, I have a story.
One night during my 05 tour we were out on patrol. My platoon was attached to a tank company at the time. Our convoy was Abrams, Bradley, Bradley and another Abrams at the rear. Keep those big boys up front. So the Iranians, I mean insurgents, decide its a nice night for a ambush via a nice suicide carbomb and RPG combo.
We are cruising along when a farming flatbed truck drives right up to the front of the lead tank and explodes. Luckily for the tank commander and loader who were out of the hatches a little bit, this suicide carbomber didnt know what the hell he was doing. All the bombs were just placed in the flatbed of the truck therefor the blast wasnt focused or contained. It destroyed the truck but did little damage to the tank or nearby buildings.
Well after the big explosion the driver side door of this twisted, burning truck opens and old Johny Jihadist jumps out. This guy is completely burned and still smoking a lot. He decides his work isnt very fun anymore and starts walking away. As you can imagine the tank commander is not to happy with mr car bomber so he quickly shoots him with his M4. Guy drops DRT. Shot to upper back.
While this is going on there is insurgent #2, we shall call him Mr. Lucky, in hiding in the palm grove to the right with his RPG. He firs it at the tank but misses high. The rocket went over the tank and hopefully flew return to sender back into Iran.
Well my buddy Mac, the gunner of the 1st Bradley (who is now SF), and the tank gunner decide to fire back with the coax as Mr Lucky is high tailing it through the thick palm groves. They lose sight of him through the thermals and assume he has made a getaway.
So I get out of my Bradley with my squad and clear the surrounding area. Now the guy we named Mr Lucky earlier wasnt named that because he got away. No he earned that name by being the only guy I have ever seen take a GOOD COM shot with a rifle round and survive. Being he was shot with a M240C (coax version) that round would be the venerable 7.62. The round entered his back just below his right shoulder blade and exited right near his left nipple. I dont know how he survived that shot, but we found him roughly 30 minutes after he was hit and he survived.
Sometimes a mix of a little strong will, higher power and maybe a little luck can go a long way.
One night during my 05 tour we were out on patrol. My platoon was attached to a tank company at the time. Our convoy was Abrams, Bradley, Bradley and another Abrams at the rear. Keep those big boys up front. So the Iranians, I mean insurgents, decide its a nice night for a ambush via a nice suicide carbomb and RPG combo.
We are cruising along when a farming flatbed truck drives right up to the front of the lead tank and explodes. Luckily for the tank commander and loader who were out of the hatches a little bit, this suicide carbomber didnt know what the hell he was doing. All the bombs were just placed in the flatbed of the truck therefor the blast wasnt focused or contained. It destroyed the truck but did little damage to the tank or nearby buildings.
Well after the big explosion the driver side door of this twisted, burning truck opens and old Johny Jihadist jumps out. This guy is completely burned and still smoking a lot. He decides his work isnt very fun anymore and starts walking away. As you can imagine the tank commander is not to happy with mr car bomber so he quickly shoots him with his M4. Guy drops DRT. Shot to upper back.
While this is going on there is insurgent #2, we shall call him Mr. Lucky, in hiding in the palm grove to the right with his RPG. He firs it at the tank but misses high. The rocket went over the tank and hopefully flew return to sender back into Iran.
Well my buddy Mac, the gunner of the 1st Bradley (who is now SF), and the tank gunner decide to fire back with the coax as Mr Lucky is high tailing it through the thick palm groves. They lose sight of him through the thermals and assume he has made a getaway.
So I get out of my Bradley with my squad and clear the surrounding area. Now the guy we named Mr Lucky earlier wasnt named that because he got away. No he earned that name by being the only guy I have ever seen take a GOOD COM shot with a rifle round and survive. Being he was shot with a M240C (coax version) that round would be the venerable 7.62. The round entered his back just below his right shoulder blade and exited right near his left nipple. I dont know how he survived that shot, but we found him roughly 30 minutes after he was hit and he survived.
Sometimes a mix of a little strong will, higher power and maybe a little luck can go a long way.
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
Holy crap at C grunts story.
Some one is gonna come up and post "yeah he was lucky, most people would die, that example was the exception."
People never quit I swear....
Some one is gonna come up and post "yeah he was lucky, most people would die, that example was the exception."
People never quit I swear....
vanfunk
Member
Huh? I am very pleased to say that this statement is elementally and completely untrue. Four of my family members served in WWI, two in WWII, ALL of them had the misfortune of being on the wrong end of German 8mm machine gun fire, ALL sustained COM wounds, ALL survived. None of the men were high on anything, save for adrenaline and perhaps, trench coffee brewed in a helmet. I can also tell you that it was not through the grace of God, or that of any deity for that matter, as these gents were dyed-in-the-wool heathens.
7.62mm NATO, nor any main battle cartridge, is not the mythical Hammer of Thor that it is often reputed to be. My family's story is not unique by any means either, as hundreds of thousands of vets can attest to as well.
Just my $.02
vanfunk
Beagle-zebub
Member
That's a good account.
People hit in the heat of battle, from the stories I have sought out or otherwise heard, often times don't feel it at all, and invariably don't feel it the way people caught completely off guard (like back in the world) do. My friend's father was an SF medic, and thus got work in some ER in some Northwestern city like Portland, and the guy's experiences were that people who'd been shot reported being surprised by how much it hurt. I've read at least one account in which the person says that the bullet felt burning hot.
In combat, though, when the adrenaline is flowing, all sorts of crazy stuff can happen--one of my favorite stories is a guy who got passed a BAR on either Iwo Jima or Okinawa (while the regular BAR-man grabbed an idle 1919), and started firing away; after the firefight, he noticed one of his hands was burned like crazy on the palm-side. When he'd taken the BAR he was being passed, he'd unthinkingly grabbed it by the hot barrel, to which he was completely oblivious at the time.
That said, I've not heard much first-hand testimony that leads me to question the effectiveness of 5.56 NATO.
- Status
Similar threads
