Soldier's .223 complaints

[C-D-P]

You are pretty correct. The reason they tightened up the twist was only to stabilize the M856 tracer. She is longer than the tracer we used before.

All spitzer type rounds will yaw when going from a less dense medium (air) into a denser one (flesh bone or jello), you are not going to stop it from happening.

What determines how fast it yaws is the length of the projectile in relation to its diameter velocity and mass.

From the M16s 20 inch barrel and M855 you will get (under normal conditions) core separation out to about 300 meters, and core disintegration out to about 210 meters.

From the M4s 16 inch barrel with M855 you will get core separation out to 240 m and disintegration out to about 150 m.

That is why it is advised to use MK262 in your M4, because from a 16 inch barrel its terminal ballistics are almost identical to that of the M855 from a 20 inch.

M855 will yaw in flesh almost exactly from M4 to M16, what causes it to come apart is the velocity it yaws at. The higher the velocity at yaw the easier it is for it to come apart.

But you do loose some intermediate barrier penetration.

As I said earlier those with M4s do not always get MK262 because of the logistical difficulty of issuing out two different types of ammo in the same caliber. That and a lot of people fail to read the MARADMINS that come out. So they just plain old don't know.

 

[627PCFan]

.223's are just groundhog bullets, theres no way around it

 

[C-D-P]

.223's are just groundhog bullets, theres no way around it

Well good fer us we are not using .223 now isnt it!

 

[Simpotico]

I can't agree more. Joes and ballistic chart Nerds have been complaining about the 5.56 for decades and will probably continue complain for some time to come. As a veteran and speaking from personal experience, the old 5.56 will kill a bloke as dead as a stone. That green tip penetrator ammo is bad medicine for the enemy. True, at close range it will zip through a bad guy like lightning because of the velocity but in combat if you gonna shoot him once, shoot him again and again and again until you're satisfied. That'll usually do the trick. Besides, your battle buddy will be there too contributing to the mess to get some trigger time and you'll still have over 400 rounds left to continue to reek havoc on the enemy with.

Sometimes the wicked green tip will put a bad guy down in his tracks. Other times when that round hits him he'll jump just like a deer and run off in his man dress only to pile up a few yards from where you shot him.

Joe doesn't need a bigger bullet. He just needs to learn how to take care of his weapon and how to shoot.

P.S.

I refer to Joe as he not to disrespect our Janes out there but because I was an infantry fighter in theater and I only speak as to my experiences.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

True, at close range it will zip through the bad guy like lightning because of the velocity...

False.

The bullet will yaw and fragment. You don't know what you're talking about.

If you increase the diameter of the bullet then you increase the mass of the bullet. More mass means greater volume of fragments when the bullet yaws and disintegrates, which translates into increased wound trauma.

M855 doesn't perform well against intermediate barrier materials and there are other factors that affect its terminal performance.

...but in combat if you gonna shoot him once, shoot him again and again and again until you're satisfied. That'll usually do the trick. Besides, your battle buddy will be there too contributing to the mess to get some trigger time and you'll still have over 400 rounds left to continue to reek havoc on the enemy with.

If only combat were so easy.

You may have been in the sand box but haven't been in combat have you, Mr. Veteran?

I suggest you study: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Schatz.pdf

Cheers.

 

[Simpotico]

You prove my point exactly, Thanks

Nice power point by the way. I like how they spun a lot of the info they're trying to present. It would be convincing if I didn't know any better. People like you usually try to resort to personal insults and questioning an individual's service record even when they're trying to be modest. But then again on Monday I'll jog down the street to B Co. 2/504 PIR during PT and stop and meet with SGT Peralas from slide 16 of your little "study", that is if he was still in the Army, so we could share our experiences together and maybe cry on each other shoulders or just have a beer together later. Either way I'll be sure to wave to my brothers next door at the 504th and tell everyone how we don't know what we are talking about because according to you we weren't really there. And our buddies, there not really dead, they just got to go home before we did and the jokes all on us, you know, the veterans, because this whole war, it didn't really happen, because that wouldn't support your data. Point is, you have your power point slides and I have experience; so, pound sand.

Oh, and that whole Jessica Lynch fiasco, it wasn't because the weapons just failed, it was because the soldiers failed to maintain their weapons and leadership failed to supervise their soldiers.


Cheerios

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Point is, you have your power point slides and I have experience; so, pound sand.

My familiarity with those who crow about their so-called combat "experience" usually don't have any.

Yes, please go have a chat with Peralas and specifically ask him to post here to support your claims and discredit the presentation.

...it wasn't because the weapons just failed, it was because the soldiers failed to maintain their weapons...

This doesn't explain the failures, under fire, encountered by those who DID maintain their weapons, does it?

People like you usually try to resort to personal insults and questioning an individual's service record even when they're trying to be modest.

I have an issue with people trying to use the authority of their purported "experience" to prove a point when it's clear he/she either has very little or none.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

See also: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

 

[Poor East Texan]

I'm not a soldier and I do NOT play one on TV.

Where I to own an Ar15 it would have soft points as I am not bound by whatever convention.

Should I need to shoot to defend my home it's gonna be #4 buckshot!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Careful with softpoints, they'll foul the feed ramps with lead. They're okay for a few rounds, but not for sustained fire.

I use only 55gr FMJ. It works for my all my purposes.

I have an AR converted to 6.8x43mm. I handload 110gr JHP cartridges for general purpose hunting.

Cheers!

 

[Elmer]

Combat veteran's anecdotes, though interesting, and entertaining, are not the best documentation of effectiveness of weapons. My Father, who was a decorated veteran of the Normandy invasion, the Battle of the Bulge, among others, and shot many men, believed that a .45 acp would knock a man down if it hit him in his finger. I've had many a Vietnam combat veteran tell me that the M16 bullets were designed to tumble in flight.

I've been there and done that, but what I know of wound ballistics came from studying the subject, and not from my gunfighting experience.

 

[mindwip]

I have never been in combat and shoot for fun, and maybe he odd zombie nor have i studied bullet effects on the human body. So i feel i should enter my opinion in this

On the topic of those being in combat knowing what knocks down enemys better and why. It would seem to hard to get evidence to back up there findings of i shoot this guy with this gun and they always went down vs this one that does not get past there winter clothes. IF your are in a fire fight do you have time afterwards to go to the ones who were shot and find out how they died? Do you have to time cut open up the bodys and see how the bullet entered the body how it broke up and exited? What organs it hit?

I just think it would be hard for most poeple in our current or even past wars to find out how the people they shot died. Weather it was do to underpowered bullets, bullets tumbabling, shot placement, and bullet path through the body.

 

[JR47]

This link may help on the Hague Conventions.
http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

Having debriefed a number of returning military from Iraq, there appears to be a rather large number of men, and women, who feel that the 5.56x45 should be replaced with "something better". They were all, those who asked for better calibers, involved in CQB.

I think that the combination of adrenalin, and time compression, can make sequences of events seem out of proportion.

However, CQB as it presents today, requires enough bullet to be able to penetrate building materials, and still be lethal. The 5.56, in many cases, is inferior to the 7.62x39 under those circumstances, much less the 7.62x51.

Development of 7.62x51 has taken a serious back-seat to that of the 5.56. Even as early as the 1970's, the Swedes and Germans had 7.62x51 that emulated the M193 ammunition in flesh, writ large. American developments essentially ceased in 1960.

It should also be noted that American forces are constrained by both the Hague Conventions, and the Geneva Conventions, while the enemy is not. They are not recognized under either title, as they aren't even irregulars. They would fit under the old terms of "Brigands, thieves, and pirates."

They should, properly, be allowed to be dealt with under the least restrictive Rules of Engagement.

 

[Simpotico]

Thanks for the link. I've seen this info disseminated before and is very useful in helping to undue the myths associated with expanding bullets.

1) The United States is NOT a signatory to either the Hague or Geneva Conventions. The United States does in good faith abide by a number of the principles laid out in both conventions but is not bound by them, this includes the principle of expanding bullets or using large caliber munitions against an individual that would be considered disproportional given the circumstances.

2) I agree that a larger round for CQB would be better than the 5.56. Like I said before, experience has shown that the 5.56 zips right through the "target" and at close ranges (in your face) several hits may be needed to put the target down. However, a number of those who "cry" for a bigger bullet either never "used" it or didn't hit what they were shooting at and in turn blame it on the weapon or the bullet for their failure.

3) Leadership has more tools available to them to accomplish the mission then just M4s. The Army and other services do have shotguns at their disposal and "experience" has shown that having the first guy in your stack armed with a shotgun and double ot buck would cream anything Joe came across in any given room but that still didn't stop him from shooting the "target" twice and being supported by other Joes behind him caring M4s. My point is, the tools are available for the soldiers to use, leadership just has to ask for them.

4) The 5.56 works. It does the job it's intended to do, kill. Yes, it does have its limitations just as any larger round does. Soldiers will probably never have one rifle and one bullet that does everything, as much as we wish we could but when one considers that a soldier can carry more than 650 rounds of 5.56 on their person for sustained combat that's a pretty awesome argument. 650 or 800 rounds of 7.62 plus gear would be an unmanageable weight unless you're in a defilade position such as the trenches of WWI, but then again they had continuous and sustained supply trains.

5) When one considers the modern battlefield environment, think Sadar City, where a patrol or a company or even a battalion may find itself in sustained combat with 3 million angry residents, cutoff from reinforcements, indefinitely; having your ground pounder carrying 15 plus 30 round magazines and one 200 round saw box is a pretty awesome force to be reckoned with. This allows war fighters to shoot at a "target" until they fix it and or kill it, then shoot it again just to make sure. The 5.56 enables this and in sustained combat, potentially cut off from supples and reinforcements due to the fluid environment found in an urban battlefield, the 5.56 has its place.

6) Now if we were fighting zie Germans across open plains I might agree more with some of the other arguments. But the modern battlefield does not support the desire of some to carry a .30 caliber or near equivalent round into combat. What about the extreme ranges encountered in Afghanistan, you say? Well, if Joe is doing his job when he identifies that FO 800 to 1000 meters out he'll fix him in place with his M4 until his team or squad can support him with either a 249 or 240 machine gun.

7) Soldiers need to have confidence in the weapons they are employing in combat. They don't need naysayers filling their heads with stories of the bogyman until they're having nightmares about bullets just falling out of the end of their barrel instead of killing the enemy. This is not to question the motives of those who are arguing for a larger round for our war fighters, your motives are good and your bringing up the subject and arguing for the added support of our war fighters is greatly appreciated. We just have to agree to disagree on some things. With that said, I am looking forward to what the 6.8 may have to offer in the future.

 

[gripper]

I prefer larger diameter...that said;the 5.56 ( or for that matter the 5.45X39) ARE very effective WITHIN the operating envelope.There are no "magic bulet/deathrays";just solid hits vs. peripheral hits.Bigger and heavier( in many cases) works better at extended ranges;since most are nt as inclined to shed velocity as quickly as the high velocity smaller bore sizes.BOTH will work however.
One of the Russian sites had a list of enhanced performance/penetration load options for the 5.45 AND the 7.62's (beyond the 7N1 and M43)...definitiely worth re-reading;since I think the link was posted here.
Any of you computer savvy folks able to bring it up???

 

[Bad Penny 03]

If you increase the diameter of the bullet then you increase the mass of the bullet. More mass means greater volume of fragments when the bullet yaws and disintegrates, which translates into increased wound trauma.

Not necessarily, more fragments, but at a lower velocity...thereby reducing the wound cavity overall size.

Its a combination of both velocity and bullet mass.

That and jacket thickness and cannelure type and depth.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

try the same test in water or gelatin and you'll see fragmentation.

Sadly like pine oak people are not jello or total water (I know composed of but water test wise) show me a test on pigs or human wound reports please, (no gory pictures though).

 

[NonConformist]

Most the complaints are due to the short barrels on the M4 and as a result the lack of terminal performance.

I know a lot of Marines who had A4s, they had no problems other than the barrier issue w/ hard walls

 

[Onmilo]

I am going to go with some other posters here,
Some Troopers are issued M855 62 grain ammo and some Troopers have been issued Mk262 77 grain cartridges.

The Troopers issued MK262 cartridges have had very good results with the load, most notably an increased terminal effect on soft targets and a marked increase in the accuracy potential of their issued service rifle, and they are all too willing to tell other Troopers about the performance. Good for them.

M855 has never been noted as a target round, and the cartridges ability to perform on soft skinned targets has been noted as less than stellar because the bullet does not break apart with the same repeatability of the older 55 grain M193 cartridge.
The MK262 can produce match grade accuracy in some rifles and the cartridges effects on soft and hardened targets has been quite satisfactory.
'Those guys get good stuff! We should get it too,,,,,,'

 

[Prophet]

..."complaining...about the stopping power of 5.56mm round since before Iraq."

Yup. Ever read Black Hawk Down?

What ever happened to the Military adopting the XM8? Rumor has it that they dropped it like a hot potato, but I dont think that it really matters since the model was/is based on 5.56NATO too.

The thing about being able to carry more 5.56 is its likely that you'll NEED more 5.56 to put someone down and make them stay down. With 7.62, however, there may be less need for multiple rounds due to the increased stopping power of the larger bullet. Thus, you may not have to carry as many rounds.

I'm not saying that the military should change only to 7.62 and not another round... but I certainly think the military would benefit from a heavier round for close-range stopping power. But like someone else mentioned, they do have shotguns for that.

 

[JR47]

The problem with current shotguns is one of capacity. It's also quite possible to miss a moving target with them. Range is another factor, and the sheer bulk of a 12 gauge shell limits the amount one can carry. Re-loading is also another slow factor.

Squad cohesiveness is a wonderful thing. Yet, when that squad is seperated by rooms and enemy fire, all too often, it comes down to the single troop, and his/her personal weapon. The harder the combat, the more likely it is to happen.

There is another factor involved, as well. Training together allows the group to understand the rhythm of it's members. As combat uses up the members, and replacements rotate in, that rhythm is lost temporarily. During these times, the likelihood of needing that personal weapon without adequate support is going to become of paramount importance.

The 5.56 will work. Then again, so will a .22 lr, so long as you consider it's limitations, and operate in it's window of strengths. We are currently battling a foe who regards marksmanship as "if Allah wills it". They also lack military cohesiveness in small units, or large. That won't always be the face of an enemy. Planners have to look beyond the current combat, and actually consider the effectiveness of the weapons platform against other soldiers and armies, not some rabble who think that dumping a magazine is the only way to fight. There, the 5.56 is going to be judged much more harshly in it's ability to penetrate cover, engage at range, and cause casualties amongst that enemy.

 

[alistaire]

..another non-story.
Nothing will come about from all of these complaints.
Its been that way since the adoption of the 5.56NATO.

Actually it has been that way since the Army adopted that pathetically weak 45/70 and the ammo wasting Trapdoor Springfield.

 

[moooose102]

well, after doing some "penetration" test, just goofing around, shooting through trees, i have found a new respect for the 5.56 round. however, with the bullets that nato requires our (and all military) to use. shooting people with them will certainly put holes in them. but as far as knocking someone off their feet with one shot, unless it is a head shot, i dont see it happening reliably. for close quarters combat, something like a 450 bushmaster with flat point bullets would give a lot more "impact shock power". even with fmj bullets. you wouldnt' want the flat points for feild use, but when doing inter city sweeping, i think it would work great. of course getting it past nato would probably never happen. and of course, everybody has their own opinions, and favorites. i dont know why we switched from the 30-06 to begin with.

 

[mccook8]

It's all a trade-off between multiple factors.

Effective range.
Penetration.
Trajectory.
Size/weight of the ammunition.

A more powerful round means a bigger, heavier round. That means you either carry less of them in the same amount of space, and with the same burden, or you increase the size and burden of the load you carry.

In the current conflict, where the enemy is typically found at relatively close range and without sustainable cover due to our ability to maneuver (the wall in front of you is worthless when some of your enemy is to the side or rear), and where the enemy does not have any meaningful medical support, range and penetration aren't overwhelming factors, and a wounding shot IS a killing shot.....eventually.

That's for Iraq, anyway. Afghanistan probably DOES call for bigger boolits.

I think that the effectiveness of the ammo could certainly be enhanced by using heavier bullets - within the limitations of the barrel twist rate, and, at close range, even despite those limitations.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Green ammo, older milspec 5.56 loads...

From what I know, DA(Dept of the US Army) went with a new "green" type load with less lead a few years ago. Some US Army spec ops types stated they would rather use the "old" style 5.56 rounds because the loads would work better in real world conditions.
Marcus Winn wrote a novel that explains these issues in detail. In real life Winn was involved with US military spec ops and was a FAA sky marshal, .

Rusty