Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

[shootr]

Well Bartholomew, a false assumption gets shattered and I stand corrected!

 

[C-grunt]

^ Great so you'll go into battle with a .22LR then, since the projectile will make it 500M and there is no proof that more energy or a larger bullet is more lethal at longer distances.

Not to be too offensive, but unless you have used the M16/5.56mm in a combat environment your opinions are not all that relevant. The observations of those that have are a bit more useful, especially those that have engaged targets at longer distances with that weapon system and cartridge.

I have and pretty much agree with Redlion.

I bet hardly any soldiers are making hits at 500 meters with their rifles. Thats a long way for a combat shot. We arent fighting the Red Coats here. They arent clad in bright colors marching in file. They are hiding and utilizing cover and wearing clothing that blends in with the enviroment.

Im willing to bet the 5.56 is still quite deadly at 500 meters. Its still going at a good clip and utilizes a decent weight for caliber bullet. Since becoming a cop, I have seen what a .22lr out of a pistol will do and it aint pretty and at 500 meters the 5.56 is going faster with a heavier bullet. It might not fragment but might still yaw, therefor slicing up your insides the length of the bullet.

You take a 62+ grn round at (guess) 1500 FPS through the chest cavity... you are in a seriously bad situation without immediate medical help.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Army's reply to Major Erhart's paper: Army Paper Prompts Look at Combat Gear

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

By the way, who are you to tell someone who was there in person what happened, and what didnt?

I am not telling anyone what happened and what didn't. I am just pointing out that what you claim happened with regards to 5.56 performance is so unlikely that a rational person has to discount your anecdote - either because your story is untrue or because the basic science behind it is clear enough that if it DID actually happen, it was a freakish anomaly.

M855 was designed to meet a requirement to penetrate ONE side of an M1 steel helmet at 600m. The Kevlar PASGT helmet is rated at Level IIIA with V50 frag by the National Institute of Justice (meaning it withstands short-range hits from 9mm FMJ and .44 Magnum semi-jacketed hollow points). Yet you claim to have seen M855 penetrate a Kevlar helmet at 800m when it had only 160 ft/lbs of energy and was a 62gr bullet travelling at roughly 1,050fps (basically about the same speed as a 60gr Aguila subsonic .22LR). You also claim to have seen M855 penetrate both sides of a steel helmet at that distance.

In order for your claim to be true, first we must believe that you witnessed the unusual accuracy required to hit a helmet at 800m (about 250m past the effective point target range of the M16A4 and past the range where M855 drops back to subsonic) using an M16 and M855. That is an impressive shot in its own right, and you've apparently seen it happen twice on a target much smaller than the military's definition of a point target.

Once we have digested that story. All we need to believe is that not once; but twice, some strange occurence took place and the M855 round that did hit also dramatically outperformed the observed performance the Army and NIJ noted and at 800m managed to penetrate both sides of a steel helmet (something M855 does not normally do at 600m) as well as penetrate the much tougher Kevlar PASGT helmet.

So those are the facts compared to what you claim. Not being omniscient, I can only look at your past posts, which also claim many experiences that contradict my own experiences with AR15s and 5.56, and make my own judgment.

 

[joed]

How can you say the 5.56 is not good for long range work? Pretty shortly the military morons will have it shooting a 200 gr bullet from a 1:3" twist barrel at 1200 fps.

Instead of torturing the .223 into something it was not the military should have gone to a 6mm or .25 cal long ago.

 

[RedLion]

Great so you'll go into battle with a .22LR then, since the projectile will make it 500M and there is no proof that more energy or a larger bullet is more lethal at longer distances.

I never said I was going to battle, or that I wanted the .22LR. I was referring to the comparison the author made between the two cartridges in stock in the U.S. military (5.56x45 NATO, and 7.62x51 NATO) and the newer, "more potent" cartridges. If the author wanted to make a case for a longer range cartridge, they should have performed the ballistics gel tests at the ranges the cartridges are said to perform better at. Without this, there is no proof for their argument. Also, a 6.8 SPC has about the same velocity at 500 yards as the .223 and .308, so where is the benefit and how do you justify the cost of it?

Not to be too offensive, but unless you have used the M16/5.56mm in a combat environment your opinions are not all that relevant. The observations of those that have are a bit more useful, especially those that have engaged targets at longer distances with that weapon system and cartridge.

How many soldiers who have used the m-16 at longer distances, also used the m-14, m1 and these newer cartridges in a side-by-side comparison of effectiveness against an enemy? How would you go about proving the effectiveness anyway? Ask the guy how much it hurt? Count bodies like they did so scientifically in Vietnam?

I'm not belittling soldiers who have been to combat, I'm just wondering why the army has been looking for the gun of the future for the past 60+ years, and why soldiers have been favoring lighter, closer range weapons for hundreds of years. It seems like a step backwards to adopt a longer range rifle/cartridge because of one combat environment when the U.S. military can be expected, and is, fighting in many environment at any time. Especially when the vast majority of hostile environments occur in urban settings where civilians are ever present.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Also, a 6.8 SPC has about the same velocity at 500 yards as the .223 and .308, so where is the benefit and how do you justify the cost of it?

It has greater mass (110gr vs. 62gr) than 5.56x45 at 500 yds, which translates into greater momentum and kinetic energy, in turn increasing wound trauma potential and ability to penetrate light barrier materials.

It has less mass than .308, which means more ammunition can be carried.

IMO, 6.8x43mm is the .40 S&W of infantry cartridges. It nicely bridges the differences between 5.56x45 and 7.62x51.

 

[d2wing]

I just can't resist agreeing with Red Lion. I am a combat veteran. I used the M14, M16 and M60 in combat. I was trained in quick kill and long range shooting as well as advance under fire. In my opinion a longer barrel M16 with no optics is the best weapon for Vietnam, supplemented by the M60 which fires the 7.62 NATO. My opinion is the troops need better training for distance shooting. The M16 effective range in my experience is about 400 yards the M14
can make an effective hit to maybe 600 yards but a good hit is very hard under combat conditions beyond 400 yards. Just my opinion and the war I was in.
I don't think our troops should be on patrol carrying all that gear. They should have mechanized units with mounted guns carrying equipment nearby. Or at least three M14s or AR10's with optic sights per squad. But I think the full auto version M16 with the right is still a good choice as an infantry weapon. Less weight less gear, less burden and I would support an cartridge upgrade to 6.8 or 6.5, but I am unconvinced that a cartridge change is going to make a lot of difference as most fire is suppressive and we already have a range advantage over an AK for aimed shots. My impression is that most gunfights are hit and run ambushes. As in Nam, you rarely ever saw your attacker other than a fleeting hint of something. The ability to return fire very quickly with some chance of accuracy is the best deterrent, as we did in Nam using quick kill. To supplement our rifle troops with designated marksmen used 7.62 or even a more effective long range round would be more useful in my humble opinion than changing the carry weapon.

 

[SHvar]

"M855 was designed to meet a requirement to penetrate ONE side of an M1 steel helmet at 600m."

Wrong, the standard was to pass through both sides of a steel helmet (which it does) at 600 meters. In fact there are even videos of this testing being done by an independant source, showing both the M14 and M16 (not A2, but the A1) with its original milspec rd doing that.
Sorry that I just cant continue to add to the BS about the 5.56 rd being a weak little bullet that so many who havent seen its handywork claim. It does more damage, much more at distances of 300-600m for a carbine length weapon, and 400-800 for a rifle length weapon than so many give it credit for. Heck I watched the .223 take down good sized whitetails at 400 meters, everyone of them dropped right away, entry and exit wounds very obvious.

 

[Robert]

In fact there are even videos of this testing being done by an independant source

Do you have a link to one of these videos? I would be interested to see this.

 

[NG VI]

Averageman -- how much does the current body armor weigh? I would be interested in seeing how much the gear weighed for troops in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII versus the troops today. It sure looks like the guys today are humping a lot more stuff.

The two plates, SAPI I believe they are named, weigh 11 pounds each, the vest weighs probably fifteen or so, and I'm not sure about the helmet. I know the ACH is much more comfortable than the older style K-pots.

 

[Old Time Hunter]

Army's reply to Major Erhart's paper: Army Paper Prompts Look at Combat Gear

Does this mean they acknowledge the deficiency of the M4 as it is currently deployed?

Army officials say they read the critique loud and clear and claim efforts are ongoing to re-evaluate basic rifle training and other tactics to better meet the Afghan threat. The service's weapons experts are also quick to point out that efforts are being made to arm Soldiers with more firepower that can reach out and touch insurgents in the Afghan hills.

Tamilio noted that the Army is in the midst of equipping each infantry squad with two EBR-14 systems --- modified M14 7.62mm rifles --- so more Soldiers will have the range and stopping power to engage the enemy with direct fire. Officials are also scouring the weapons lockers of special operations units to see if some of their firepower could be fielded to general purpose units to boost their capabilities.

But then they add this:

But officials are reluctant to equip units with too many weapons that meet long-range needs at the expense of the close-range capability. Tamilio said the 5.56mm M4 worked well in the close-range urban fights of Iraq, but Afghanistan is proving the need for more options with heavier rounds.

But we are talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq

 

[gasharpshooter]

The 82nd ABN moved up from the General Aviation Terminal at King Kahlid International Airport in Riyahd onboard C-130's and slept in my hangar while doing it. It took a couple days. I had to move my C-12 so they could sleep and rest while waiting to board. I shared "airborne tea" with them, which is a hideous blend of whatever flavors of MRE drink powder a squad had mixed together in the same water bottle. Made my mouth pucker, so I gave them a pallet of canned Cokes in sympathy.

Those men carried M-16A2's. I don't remember seeing a single M4.

A few of Norman's bodyguard's did carry CAR-15's, I saw him and his security detail up at KKMC. I don't think anyone was calling them "M4's" yet, were they? CAR-15's and MP-5's is what I remember.

Regards.

 

[DannyinJapan]

I have been reliably informed that the armed forces ARE currently issuing armory-stocked M-14's and ordering M1A's from civilian makers as well.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Wrong, the standard was to pass through both sides of a steel helmet (which it does) at 600 meters. In fact there are even videos of this testing being done by an independant source, showing both the M14 and M16 (not A2, but the A1) with its original milspec rd doing that.

MIL-C-63989C(A4) describes the performance standards for M855.

Section 3.9 states: The bullet of the sample cartidges shall demonstrate complete penetration of 10 gauge (0.135 inch) thickness AISI 1010 to 1020 steel plate target with hardness between RB 55 minimum and RB 70 maximum, NATO Plate positioned at 656 yards (600 meters) from the weapon.

At 636yds, M855 is moving under 1,404fps. Based on this study (Page 10), the retained mass of an M855 projectile impacting 10 gauge mild steel at about 1,400fps will be about 20gr.

Of course, this doesn't really tell us much about your claim (other than it is highly unlikely), which was that M855 penetrates both side of the older steel M1 helmet at ranges BEYOND 800m and penetrates the newer Kevlar PASGT helmet at 800m.

Note that the same study linked above suggests that as velocities approach 1,000fps, none of the modeled rounds (M855, Mk262 and M995 AP) will penetrate 10 gauge mild steel. At 800m, M855 is moving at about 1,005fps.

But hey, who are these people to contradict what you have seen with your own eyes, eh?

Heck I watched the .223 take down good sized whitetails at 400 meters, everyone of them dropped right away, entry and exit wounds very obvious.

One more SHvar experience I have yet to share!

 

[Coal Dragger]

Can all troops hit a target at 500M? No.

Can some of them do it consistently even under combat conditions? Yes.

Can more of them do it now with optics like the ACOG the Marines issue? Absolutely.

What many seem to not take into account is just how much optics have increased the ability to make good hits for those that have them issued. More and more magnified optics are finding their way to grunt units, especially USMC units. While the optic doesn't make the rifle it is mounted to more accurate, nor the shooter a steadier shot, it helps the shooter see the target better. I'll admit that even though I was a multiple award expert rifleman, and found the 500M line to be easy points on qualification even with iron sights, that the front sight obscures a lot of that target way out there on the long line.

Add a 4X32 ACOG and hits out at 500M are easy on a stationary target because you can see it better. Shoot a moving target at that distance? Not likely. But in my experience the enemy is not constantly moving, they stop to shoot, observe, take cover, etc.

The arguments for not improving our infantry weapon because we have heavy MG's, mortars, arty, and air support is a false argument. Guess what guys? The ROE's don't always allow for the use of those crew served weapons, you can call for fire and just strait up be denied. So you might want to have a rifle that can reach out a little further than what we currently have with enough power to get the job done.

Furthermore the dumbed down Army marksmanship training has to be improved drastically for combat arms units. I've seen Army troops shoot, and quite honestly have never been impressed. The Marines do things better (at least they train in some manner for longer distance shooting) but could also improve by adding more field oriented shooting like they were phasing in just as I was getting out. The average trooper not being able to hit even a stationary target past 300M is reflective of an unacceptable level of training, and is a piss poor excuse to use for equipment selection.

If the Army found itself unable to train the average soldier to hit a target 25 feet away shall we just dispense with rifles all together and issue shotguns? Clearly that is absurdly stupid, so the real answer is no. Instead you change the training to reflect the need to be able to hit targets further away, and start producing shooters that can do it issued equipment that is also capable.

 

[Al Thompson]

videos of this testing

Nah. Hard to video tape anything 20 years before video cameras were invented.

Deer with a 5.56 at 400m? Possible, but having punched a bunch of deer, entrance wounds are very hard to see even with .30 calibers. Try it some time, it's different in the real world.

 

[KW]

Coal Dagger, are you arguing that our troops are hitting their targets at 500m in combat fairly often, but getting no result because the hole in the enemy fighters is .224" instead of .308"?

Assuming an altitude of 5873 ft (Kabul's according to wikipedia), M855 from a 14.5" barrel is going to be doing 1659fps for 391 ft-lbs of energy. Not a lot by rifle standards, but way beyond any .22lr. In fact, that's as much energy as a typical 230gr .45 ACP at the muzzle. Clearly it's going to penetrate Haji, as well as a steel helmet. I wouldn't want to bet on soft Kevlar or a PASGT helmet holding up either at 500m.

So is a bigger hole worth the cost of replacing the weapons, cost of ammo (less live fire training), weight of ammo, weight of the weapon, more recoil (exacerbating the accuracy problem), lower rate of fire etc.? Or should we focus on just training more to start hitting the targets? Or better yet, match their heavy weapons with our own (that we have more of, and are much more capable)?

 

[Coal Dragger]

I believe that our troops are able to hit targets with some frequency at those distances when equipped with optics. At least I know Marines are capable of doing so, can't speak for the average Army grunt except to say many of those I observed probably couldn't since they were never given good marksmanship training to begin with. Which needs to change. As for terminal effect it still depends largely on shot placement, but at longer distances the M855 is not all that effective unless vital organs are hit (not enough energy for hydrostatic shock or fragmentation). Furthermore, the M855 round is not particularly efficient in the ballistics department, especially from the silly little 14.5" bbl of an M4, so maintaining enough accuracy at that distance to get good solid hits is a bit suspect. The bullet is too susceptible to wind drift to offer much in the way of long distance accuracy. The heavier 77gr pill is much better in this regard, but still not as good as say a 120gr 6.5mm.

Again you make the argument about using heavier weapons, well look at the ROE's in either the Iraq or Afghan theater and you'll find that many of those heavier weapons are gross verboten in many circumstances. I've dealt with it first hand, and I am not interested in armchair quarterbacks just suggesting using something you can't use. Reality is reality, when you are fighting an insurgent war you can't go lighting up everything with an M2 or a MK19.

To answer your question on terminal performance, yes the bigger hole is worth the weight, the heavier ammo that can penetrate better is worth carrying. I routinely carried over 300 rounds of 5.56mm on my person in Iraq, yet in the various firefights I was involved in I rarely fired more than 60-70 rounds, the majority of which were not needed except for suppression (which I am not too fond of doing, but orders are orders). So I can see giving up some ammo capacity for a more effective round and being just fine with it, or just carrying more weight if I had to. Also given a choice between getting shot with a M855 round out of an M4 from 500M out and taking a .45 230fmj at 7 feet, I would take the M855 every day and twice on Sunday. I think you would too. Bigger bullets create more blood loss, more blood loss kills targets more effectively. Poking holes in a target does not equate to effective terminal performance, and at 500M a 5.56mm round is not going to fragment, may not even yaw, and is not going to be all that effective. Never mind what happens when even light cover objects, are encountered.

As for training being restricted due to costs of replacing the 5.56mm with something more effective I would argue that we cut some spending from the Air Farce to make up the difference, seeing as how they are being replaced by armed drones that shouldn't pose a problem. By eliminating just a few over priced aircraft you save enough to have grunts shooting every week for a year or more.

The Armed Forces are resistant to change weapons and caliber for budget and training reasons (because those making the decisions are REMF's). It seems that many on here are resistant to the idea because of some fondness for the AR platform and the 5.56mm. Maybe some of you will feel cheated if it is found that your pet rifle is really only marginally effective as an infantry weapon due to the relatively puny cartridge it is chambered for. I own an AR-15 chambered in 5.56mm, and it is fun to shoot and I enjoy it. I do not however have any delusions (as some here seem to) that it is the end all be all best answer as an infantry weapon. It is far from it in my opinion and experience.

 

[KW]

My point with regard to heavy weapons is that no shoulder fired service rifle is really going to be comparable to a DShK or 82mm mortar at 500+ meters. So if that's the real problem, as proposed by the author of the paper, then we need to come up with some other solution.

If shot placement is the major determinant in the effect of the round on the target (which I agree with 100%) than what are we really gaining? Are the bad guys really taking holes in their vitals, and stopping to measure their wound diameter before returning to their mortar and laughing at the silly Americans and their 5.56mm? Does a 5.56mm hole in their aorta clot, but a 7.62mm doesn't? I guess my argument is that the bigger calibers aren't going to be a death ray in comparison to what we have. Will they produce a larger wound? Sure. But is it going to play out to a measurable difference at 500m when the enemy can easily opt to flee if he gets shot? I don't think so. A graze with a 7.62mm is still a graze, and a hole in your head is still a hole in your head, even if it's only 5.56mm.

We keep seeing the guys that can have whatever they want generally picking 5.56mm weapons for infantry combat (and even some sniping as evidenced by the Mk12 SPR). SOCOM has a modern 7.62 available in the system now in the shape of the SCAR-H. I guess we'll see what the trend is from them over the coming years.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Shot placement being equal a larger bullet moving at the same speed as a smaller pill is going to do more damage. One other factor we have not talked about yet is dealing with targets other than flesh, and the 5.56mm is really lacking in that department. Having witnessed vehicles and dwellings being shot up with just about everything (and shooting a few myself) I can tell you I am unimpressed with 5.56mm. Go ahead light up that oncoming vehicle with your M16 or SAW. Unless you hit the driver it's not going to stop. An M240 on the other hand will be much more effective, I've not seen the average passenger car or truck that could take a burst or two of 7.62 NATO and keep functioning for long, but I've seen plenty keep right on moving with a radiator and front end full of 5.56mm.

Don't take that as me advocating for us to use 7.62 NATO as a general issue rifle, I am not. I am advocating for something more effective than 5.56 NATO, something with more range, more power, and better accuracy potential beyond 300M. Nothing is going to be a death ray, but that doesn't mean there is a reason to not improve.

 

[RedLion]

^^^ you do have a point there, but how does that equate to needing a new cartridge with more momentum at 500 yards than a .223 but less than a .308?

I was involved in I rarely fired more than 60-70 rounds, the majority of which were not needed except for suppression

And what happens when more bullets are needed? And would a .308/6.8 SPC/etc etc suppress enemy combatants better than a .223?

IMO, 6.8x43mm is the .40 S&W of infantry cartridges. It nicely bridges the differences between 5.56x45 and 7.62x51.

Yes, and we can come up with the metaphorical .357 sig, 10mm, 9x23, 38super etc, etc, but at the end of the day you cannot justify why one more rifle cartridge should be used when either the .223 or the .308 can be used, especially when both already exist in many weapons and can be purchased in large quantities.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

at the end of the day you cannot justify why one more rifle cartridge should be used when either the .223 or the .308 can be used, especially when both already exist in many weapons and can be purchased in large quantities.

The justification is simple - arm ALL infantry with 6.8x43mm (carbines and SAWs) and give them ALL the same reliable capability to defeat light barrier materials, give them ALL the same capability to engage more distant targets, give them ALL the same increase in wound trauma incapacitation capability and eliminate the cobbled together piecemeal specializations (specialized designated marksmen with special "enhanced" rifles) and logistics issues.

 

[JShirley]

OTH,

I gave up after 30 minutes or so of searching my old posts in Rifle Country...

In a nutshell, this idea about wounding instead of killing is not found in any documents before the 5.56mm was fielded. And I have to say, I've heard more bogus firearms "information" while on active duty, from service members, than anywhere else. In fact, I believe the document you produced as evidence is the FIRST document mentioning it I was able to find. From 1973.

J

 

[shootr]

As a nonocombat vet / longtime deer hunter & shooter - what Coaldragger said in post #94 pretty much tells the tale IMHO.

5.56 is too small, too light and too slow out of a 14.5" barrel beyond 300 yards to be reliably effective enough on ppl, let alone barriers.