It's not the ballistics that matter so much as the ability to incapacitate the enemy. Personally I think that 5.56 is not a horrible round for law enforcement but as a military standard round it is not suitable. The troops need to be able to dispatch someone as quick as possible and not have to worry about them getting up. Which leads to the 6.8 or 7.62.
Soldier's .223 complaints
- Thread starter Chrome
- Start date
- Status
HoosierQ
Member
Say what you will about the inherent ballistic capability of the 5.56 round...any 5.56 round...that may be another question.
In Iraq the problem is the short barrel necessary for vehicle dismount and close quarters house-to-house. A short barrel is going to call for a bigger bullet...some will say designed slower too...but all agree that bigger is better at the lower velocities in the short barrel. 6.5x40-ish kind of thing (don't flame me please, I know there are real rounds out there...I am speaking strictly hypothetically here.)
In Afganistan the problem is range. For the first time since I don't know when, the Allied soldier is frequently in a postion to actually see the enemy from as much as 1000m...across valleys and whatnot. Obviously a totally different round and rifle is going to be needed here...can anybody say M14? To be able to engage the enemy out to 1000m (and in Afganistan the need is really there), your are going to want 7.62x51, .300 Win Mag, .338 Lapua, and 50 BMG. You're going to want 24 inch barrels or whatever...not 14 inchers.
If I were running things they'd be different and better. Pistols would be 45s. SMGs would be 45s. Carbines would be my hypothetical 6.5x40ish round. Rifles would be Rifles again and shoot 7.62x51. Marksmen would have a standard very long range bolt gun in .300 Win Mag or .338 Lapua or some other really good long range round (and then a carbine or pistol handy). Snipers (as opposed to Marksmen) I think have what they need. The SAW would switch over to the 6.5x40ish caliber and the machine gun would stay where it is.
If only I were running things.
In Iraq the problem is the short barrel necessary for vehicle dismount and close quarters house-to-house. A short barrel is going to call for a bigger bullet...some will say designed slower too...but all agree that bigger is better at the lower velocities in the short barrel. 6.5x40-ish kind of thing (don't flame me please, I know there are real rounds out there...I am speaking strictly hypothetically here.)
In Afganistan the problem is range. For the first time since I don't know when, the Allied soldier is frequently in a postion to actually see the enemy from as much as 1000m...across valleys and whatnot. Obviously a totally different round and rifle is going to be needed here...can anybody say M14? To be able to engage the enemy out to 1000m (and in Afganistan the need is really there), your are going to want 7.62x51, .300 Win Mag, .338 Lapua, and 50 BMG. You're going to want 24 inch barrels or whatever...not 14 inchers.
If I were running things they'd be different and better. Pistols would be 45s. SMGs would be 45s. Carbines would be my hypothetical 6.5x40ish round. Rifles would be Rifles again and shoot 7.62x51. Marksmen would have a standard very long range bolt gun in .300 Win Mag or .338 Lapua or some other really good long range round (and then a carbine or pistol handy). Snipers (as opposed to Marksmen) I think have what they need. The SAW would switch over to the 6.5x40ish caliber and the machine gun would stay where it is.
If only I were running things.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
You know, I read Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor" not too long ago. He was part of a four-man SEAL detachment tasked with observing Taliban forces in Afghanistan in just the type of environment you describe. In fact, one of the big problems they had was the barren nature of the mountainous area they were in making it difficult for them to hide.
Unfortunately, their presence was compromised and his unit was involved in a furious firefight that killed three of his team and wounded him. Despite having a Mk12 SPR designed for longer shots, the longest shot Luttrell mentions taking over an extensive battle in this terrain was 100yds.
Mission specific gear and ammo isn't of much use if your soldiers don't have it because of the logistical difficulties involved in supporting multiple weapons and ammo types.
ctdonath
Member
Unlike the rest of us squares, who really do want everything always the same and crappy.
RNB65
Member
Soldier's don't use .223. 
owen said:
So true. There isn't a cartridge you can hold that will flip a person head over heels.
There does seem to be an argument that the heavier bullet and faster twist of the M855 has led to a reduction in lethality at range. Short barreled rifles exacerbate this behavior. The problem is that bigger, heavier bullets don't fix this problem as long as you are shooting FMJ. The much vaunted 7.62x51mm was actually less lethal to the target in Vietnam, probably in large part due to the reduced combat ranges that and ensured the M193 would fracture in the target. 7.62 typically flips over and exits base first doing less tissue damage than a 5.56 bullet that fragments.
If you can get away from FMJ, there is no doubt that 762x51 is a superior killer, and the Germans developed a 7.62 bullet that behaved in the same way as the M193 and M855, fracturing along the canneleur and creating brutal wound channels - but of course at the expense of penetration.
The reality is that there is no simple fix. I've read reports from WWII where 30-06 ball was ineffective at relatively modest ranges (average range of engagement in the ETO was only 75 yards).
The problem is exactly what Owen described. Real life experience does not match TV. And the people complaining the most are soldiers who typically lack close combat experience. That a software problem, not a hardware problem.
Can a case be made for a different cartridge? Certainly. But it won't change much. It will just be another compromise with the emphasis on different factors.
neviander
Member
Would a .308 win assault rifle be much better?
We'd all like to give every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, and Marine a rifle that can knock a haji on his ass from 1000 yards. But the sad fact is that a couple weak hits is better than a couple powerful misses. The military does not have the resources to fill its ranks with re incarnated Carlos Hathcocks.
Respectfully, I think you are not only completely wrong, but you have it reversed. In law enforcement, you're never realistically going to have to hike for many klicks in an environment where the enemy can't hear the sound of a motor vehicle and you have to carry a week's worth of water, food, shelter, and munitions on your person. For law enforcement, a reasonable argument can be made for a larger caliber rifle for some applications.
Engaging enemy at distance has been mentioned a couple of times recently. Just over a year ago, I was attached to an ODA camp in Afghanistan. The SF boys had all the toys. And when we fought, we used crew-served weapons. There was a case of MK 262 sitting in the ammo point. I built up my own SDM-type rifle, with the help of our own merchant of death/ solid supporter of US troops Larry Correia. I was told I was welcome to use the 262- the ODA weren't using it.
I think I directly engaged the enemy maybe 8 times, with another 10 times or so firing at possible enemy movement. Not once was with a rifle.
Logistics is more important than terminal performance, in the big picture. Size matters, especially when you have to carry your ammo. Crew served weapons are the real fighters.
John
they didn't know about framentation when they first issued the 5.56.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm
in case you think i made that up
06
Member
I have heard this tumble/fragment talk for the last 30-40 years and it is a bunch of "hooey". Full metal jacket (military ball) ammo or SS-109 will not tumble or fragment. It will go straight through. I have done several tests on 223-39s-51s-and a few others. The 223 ball surprised me at punching through 6" of Pine and 1" of seasoned Oak almost intact. Hunting rds came through also but took out big chunks of the Oak.
39s did the same and with similiar results with soft tips. 51s/55s were as expected much more destructive.
Say what you will but watch some footage of Iraq actions and see how many of our men are carrying AKs-speaks for itself, wc
39s did the same and with similiar results with soft tips. 51s/55s were as expected much more destructive.
Say what you will but watch some footage of Iraq actions and see how many of our men are carrying AKs-speaks for itself, wc
blackhawk2000
member
I hate to break this to you, but people are not made of pine or oak.
try the same test in water or gelatin and you'll see fragmentation.
the framentation comes from the tumbling enabled by a fluid medium. if there is not tumbling there is no framentation.
firing into wood where you penetrate stops any possiblity of tumbling because the channel bored will straighten the bullet's path. it practically preempts fragmentation.
how can you say it doesn't happen just because you did your test. war surgeons have been pulling fragged bullets from bodies for a long time.
the framentation comes from the tumbling enabled by a fluid medium. if there is not tumbling there is no framentation.
firing into wood where you penetrate stops any possiblity of tumbling because the channel bored will straighten the bullet's path. it practically preempts fragmentation.
how can you say it doesn't happen just because you did your test. war surgeons have been pulling fragged bullets from bodies for a long time.
cpttango30
Member
I always wanted the biggest weapon we had in the arms room. I was the company Mk-19 gunner for 2 years until the gave me a SAW. It is rather hard to carry a Mk-19 on a road march though. For my main battle rifle I wanted one that would allow me to carry tons of ammo. more ammo going the direction of the bad guys meant less ammo coming at my head.
I never was deployed out side the states while I was in the Army. never got a chance to fight either as when the fighting broke out I held a REMF non-combat MOS.
Now why do you have to go and tell everyone our secret?
I never was deployed out side the states while I was in the Army. never got a chance to fight either as when the fighting broke out I held a REMF non-combat MOS.
Biker said:
Now why do you have to go and tell everyone our secret?
In short, its a scam. Their blended metal ammunition is just plain lead jacketed ammo. If you want the full story register at tacticalforums.com and read this thread http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001189
Its got everything from a cross section of the ammo to lab analysis to ammo tests, and of course the ad materials stating their lead ammo is lead free.
ylapirrynag
Member
I read in one of my history books that some reasons we even downgraded to 5.56 in the first place were:
In a military study, 2/3's of soldiers weren't firing their weapons. Even to save their own life some didn't shoot. People often shot more if they had more ammo (i.e. clip size) and/or a full auto capability. Also, 7.62 is heavier than 5.56, and has more kickback. So, your 5.56 (or .223 whatever floats your boat) is lighter, has less kick back, allows for bigger clips. However, in theory if you are just matching bullet diameters the 5.56 is weaker than the 7.62. So I'm curious, what if we had a inbetween like some mentioned, a 6mm round, like the 6.6x55? I would guess that it would have some qualities of both sizes of ammunition, but never delving much on the subject (as after all, I am not in the Army yet and have no combat expeirence with firearms).
In a military study, 2/3's of soldiers weren't firing their weapons. Even to save their own life some didn't shoot. People often shot more if they had more ammo (i.e. clip size) and/or a full auto capability. Also, 7.62 is heavier than 5.56, and has more kickback. So, your 5.56 (or .223 whatever floats your boat) is lighter, has less kick back, allows for bigger clips. However, in theory if you are just matching bullet diameters the 5.56 is weaker than the 7.62. So I'm curious, what if we had a inbetween like some mentioned, a 6mm round, like the 6.6x55? I would guess that it would have some qualities of both sizes of ammunition, but never delving much on the subject (as after all, I am not in the Army yet and have no combat expeirence with firearms).
Read the book "Killology." It covers it pretty well. Essentially they found that because of a lack in proper training before hitting the beaches of Normandy, only 10% of the soldiers actually fired their weapons, and only 1/3 of the total number attempted to push forward. They just didn't have a combat mindset, and were not prepared mentally for it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If it was designed for that, there has to be a pre-design document, usually called a Required Operational Capability (ROC) statement that specifically says the final product will "tumble-and-fragment-on-contact" or words to that effect. There is none.
FMJ bullets normally yaw on contact, which is what the 5.56mm bullet does. At high velocities, as it yaws, it stresses the cannelure, which some times yields -- but it wasn't designed to do that.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
My understanding is that the whole "barely stabilized bullet" resulting in instant tumbling is a myth. It matters not whether the twist rate is 1 in 14 or 1 in 7. Certainly the twist rate determines whether the bullet is "barely stabilized" or "highly stabilized" in AIR. That is a valid idea. But it doesn't matter one iota what the twist rate is when a bullet leaves the AIR and enters a SOLID material like flesh. It would take a spin rate several hundred times what a 1 in 7 does for the bullet to be stabilized enough to not destabilize in flesh. ANY bullet no matter what the twist rate, is going to destabilize in flesh. What DOES matter is (a) velocity, (b) bullet length, and (c) bullet construction. The shorter barrel of the M4 makes the m855 tumble for only so many yards before slowing down too much. Going to the M193 would *definitely* help tumbling/fragmentation at ALL distances, but particularly at medium-longer distances. Likewise, use a 20" barrel would *definitely* help at ALL distances, but particularly at medium-longer distances. Doing both would help even more (20" bbl with 55 gr M193). Going to a longer bullet of different material and lighter construction, espec. with more "weakness" at the cannelure where the bullet initially fails upon yawing would also help.
So it ain't the twist rate, it's the barrel length & bullet weight (comprising velocity), and bullet length/material, and bullet construction that matters, in my understanding.
The requirement of punching through helmet at 600 yards which the M855 does, while neat, is ridiculous and unnecessary, and detrimental to the real fighting being done, where the incapacitation power of the tumbling of the M913 is needed. it's a tradeoff, and here we're choosing the wrong trade.
Oh, the caliber is just fine, seems to me.
But I could be wrong on all of above counts.
- Status
Similar threads
