rangerruck
Member
just think, if we would have gone with the 6mm lee navy , way back in the early 1900s.
The M-16 Soldiers On
- Thread starter Mainsail
- Start date
- Status
I've never been in combat, but I've been a hunter. Hunters I know won't use the .223 on anythng larger than a coyote. Some states outlaw it for deer. Seems to me a good round for our soldiers should at least take a deer cleanly...
Mortech
Member
SA-80 ought to be banned , that weapon SUCKS! (Shudders) I got to play with it when I was stationed in Germany and I was on loan to a Brit forward air observation unit . They did nothing but bitched about it constantly , the bullpup design is handier than their older L1A1s but to a man they wanted their FALs back .
crazed_ss
Member
Most of the people hit by .223/5.56 in DC Sniper attacks would probably disagree with the round only being a "wounder"
Don't Tread On Me
Member
A while back I had read the transcripts of the first trial. Very interesting stuff. Very long read, but the trial covered every single victim, how they were shot, where, what the wound was like. Testimony from family, eye witnesses, doctors (and pathologists), and police investigators. Details of wound location, angle of entry, distance of shooter was all laid out.
IIRC, 3 survived. If you subtract the headshots, I think 3/5 of them would be considered "one shot stoppers". The one man hit outside of a restaurant didn't even notice he was hit for a few seconds. He was able to even walk for a bit.
The murderers were using (again, going from memory) regular 55gr FMJ. The medical pros would describe the X-rays of the wounds as a "snow storm of lead" (fragmentation). And described the wounds as horrifying. One lady victim was hit twice, and the one shot had completely exited without fragmenting, but it did change course from its entry to its exit. This particular shot was not COM, but still on the torso.
I had though of possibly copying the relevant excerpts of the .223's performance from the case testimony and facts into a thread here on THR, but that would be in poor taste. I didn't need to read that to be convinced, and I don't think the victims of the DC murderers need to be exploited to fuel our terminal performance debates or to convince the AR-15/5.56 haters who aren't here to learn or debate but to bash.
IIRC, 3 survived. If you subtract the headshots, I think 3/5 of them would be considered "one shot stoppers". The one man hit outside of a restaurant didn't even notice he was hit for a few seconds. He was able to even walk for a bit.
The murderers were using (again, going from memory) regular 55gr FMJ. The medical pros would describe the X-rays of the wounds as a "snow storm of lead" (fragmentation). And described the wounds as horrifying. One lady victim was hit twice, and the one shot had completely exited without fragmenting, but it did change course from its entry to its exit. This particular shot was not COM, but still on the torso.
I had though of possibly copying the relevant excerpts of the .223's performance from the case testimony and facts into a thread here on THR, but that would be in poor taste. I didn't need to read that to be convinced, and I don't think the victims of the DC murderers need to be exploited to fuel our terminal performance debates or to convince the AR-15/5.56 haters who aren't here to learn or debate but to bash.
johnmcl
Member
Reference
Hi all,
First, Tread, nicely thought out response. I've read the case transcripts also and thank you for your restraint.
I would refer those in doubt on the 5.56's lethality to that wonderfully objective, if somewhat mathematical, essay on the subject at Ammo Oracle.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/
John
Hi all,
First, Tread, nicely thought out response. I've read the case transcripts also and thank you for your restraint.
I would refer those in doubt on the 5.56's lethality to that wonderfully objective, if somewhat mathematical, essay on the subject at Ammo Oracle.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/
John
Cosmoline, I agree with your comments on the Hague Convention, no way out of that idiotic accord though. So we are stuck with FMJ ammo, that being the case you want the most effective FMJ ammo you can get. Hence my comments on going back to the 7.62NATO and .45acp. The idea of the air pocket in the tip is something I wish we would do, but I know we won't. I can hear the lefty limp wristed libs on Capitol Hill screetching how inhumane that would be....remember these are the same panty wastes that think putting underwear on someones head at Abu Ghraib is torture.
Zarqawi with the SAW is simply propaganda. In the Arab world using the captured weapon of a dead enemy is a taunting trophy. We were supposed to be intimidated by that......it was not a comment on the efficacy of the gun. I was amused by the full video that came out showing the idiot did not know how to clear it when it malfunctioned. He needed another towel head to do that for him.
Zarqawi with the SAW is simply propaganda. In the Arab world using the captured weapon of a dead enemy is a taunting trophy. We were supposed to be intimidated by that......it was not a comment on the efficacy of the gun. I was amused by the full video that came out showing the idiot did not know how to clear it when it malfunctioned. He needed another towel head to do that for him.
Sinsaba
Member
First, a disclaimer. I have no first hand knowledge (i.e. I've never shot anyone). I, like most of you all have read a lot of information on the internet and from other sources. All I propose here is to present my logic as it pertains to the raw information I've read.
1) the negative reports on the M16 (the platform) have to a large extent been corrected (the propensity to jam, etc.) and the platform can be considered reliable if reasonably maintained.
Before anybody jumps in with the "back in Vietnam" horror stories of this platform, I'm talking about the current incarnation. Before anybody jumps in with the "I've had this bad thing happen" and "I've read horror stories of current versions jamming" remember, there isn't anything to talk about when everything goes right. How many times was the trigger pulled (on the platform not an individual rifle) and it went bang flawlessly?
2) In this article, other articles, and from first through fifth hand stories, I have heard (with regards to the round) "he took X rounds and still fired".
Q: How do you know he took X rounds? A: That's how many I fired.
Q: Where was he hit? A: COM man!!
Other questions come to mind but to start with let us deal with just these two.
If you hit a guy in the arm with a 7.62, can he keep on fighting?
If you hit him there with a .30-06?
How about a 50BMG?
The answer to all of those is YES
How about center of mass. Let us assume that you take out his heart with one round. Can he still fight? Does it matter what the round is?
Yes, he can still fight.
Then you get the stories about how a guy was hit with multiple rounds of 5.56, still functioned, was patched up, and survived. At what range? Did the bullet hit anything else first?
These two questions are very important to how the bullet performs when it hits the target. If the range is too great (if memory serves me the round performs best under 250 meters) the bullet performs much like a .22. If the bullet deforms because it strikes something it doesn't perform as designed too.
It seems to me from everything I've read, that when used as designed this round performs very well indeed. People can and will survive any round if it doesn't hit in the right place, isn't going fast enough, etc.. Motivated people will continue to fight on for some time even with fatal wounds. The only sure way to stop someone so they can't fight on is with a CNS shot (this is something that we all know but seem to forget when we start talking about the "wimpy" 5.56 round).
1) the negative reports on the M16 (the platform) have to a large extent been corrected (the propensity to jam, etc.) and the platform can be considered reliable if reasonably maintained.
Before anybody jumps in with the "back in Vietnam" horror stories of this platform, I'm talking about the current incarnation. Before anybody jumps in with the "I've had this bad thing happen" and "I've read horror stories of current versions jamming" remember, there isn't anything to talk about when everything goes right. How many times was the trigger pulled (on the platform not an individual rifle) and it went bang flawlessly?
2) In this article, other articles, and from first through fifth hand stories, I have heard (with regards to the round) "he took X rounds and still fired".
Q: How do you know he took X rounds? A: That's how many I fired.
Q: Where was he hit? A: COM man!!
Other questions come to mind but to start with let us deal with just these two.
If you hit a guy in the arm with a 7.62, can he keep on fighting?
If you hit him there with a .30-06?
How about a 50BMG?
The answer to all of those is YES
How about center of mass. Let us assume that you take out his heart with one round. Can he still fight? Does it matter what the round is?
Yes, he can still fight.
Then you get the stories about how a guy was hit with multiple rounds of 5.56, still functioned, was patched up, and survived. At what range? Did the bullet hit anything else first?
These two questions are very important to how the bullet performs when it hits the target. If the range is too great (if memory serves me the round performs best under 250 meters) the bullet performs much like a .22. If the bullet deforms because it strikes something it doesn't perform as designed too.
It seems to me from everything I've read, that when used as designed this round performs very well indeed. People can and will survive any round if it doesn't hit in the right place, isn't going fast enough, etc.. Motivated people will continue to fight on for some time even with fatal wounds. The only sure way to stop someone so they can't fight on is with a CNS shot (this is something that we all know but seem to forget when we start talking about the "wimpy" 5.56 round).
Beachmaster
Member
I'm one of the few who has used both a M-16 and a M-14 in combat situations. Being in a Navy Boat Group, I got to choose what I carried instead of just getting issued a weapon. I usually took a M-14 that had the full auto switch removed so it was just a semi-auto. I prefered to have a larger round, and what I personally believe to be a better weapon.
That said, when I did a Guard Mail route, or traveled with Marine units, I usually carried a M-16 with a 203 launcher. I liked having the launcher, and being able to share mags with the Marines.
I saw advantages and disadvantages with each weapon in different situations. I never felt one was better or worse in general, just better suited to different situations. Both did the job when I pulled the trigger.
My take on equiping infantry units and how we fight current wars follows:
* We are currently fighting in 2 vastly different environments. One is longer range desert/mountains , and the other is Urban house to house. In addition, we have fought in Jungle environments, and we may have to fight in artic cold climates as well. One weapon does not really suit all these requirements. What works well for long range is a larger weapon with a longer barrel and a heavy large bullet operated with a scope in semi auto aimed shots.
What works best for house to house fighting is a smaller weapon, with a shorter barrel, used primarily in full auto, with a red dot or similar short distance but wide field of view scope.
Instead of issuing different weapons to troops depending on where they are stationed, or their missions, I think we need a weapon system that can change into different configs (like the Stoner weapon system)
For those not familiar, The Stoner weapon System was invented by Eugene Stoner, the guy who made the AR15/M16 rifles. He invisioned a complete weapon system that would allows carbines, rifles and machine guns to be based around a parts group. The weapons could be used as standard magazine fed, upside down (like a Bren) magazine fed, or even BELT fed. They had different barrels, stocks, etc and could be configurered into various weapon systems depending on the mission requirements. Because of politics, the weapon was never adopted for regular use by any branch of service, but found favor with the Navy Seals in Vietnam.
Ultimax has a great Light machine Gun in 223 that would be a good starting point for a new weapon system. Their Mk3 is fully auto, and the Mk4 is select fire. Both system have interchangable barrels (no tools needed) available in different lengths, and folding stocks available. While they don't allow for belt feeding (like the older Stoners did), with the advent of the CMag 100 round drums, belts would not really be necessary. Even the Marines are looking to replace their dual feed (belt and magazine) S A W with a magazine fed only gun.
Imagine being able to configure a weapon into:
* Long Range rifle with 22" barrel, Fixed stock and scope
* Medium range all around weapon with 18" barrel, fixed stock and Iron Sights
* MOUNT config with 14" barrel, folding skeleton stock and Reflex sight
* SpecOP machinepistol 11" barrel, no stock and Reflex sight
* Fully Auto LMG with 20" Heavy barrel, fixed stock, Red dot scope
* Fully Auto Small LMG with 16" heavy barrel, folding stock, and Reflex sight
AND MORE!
Imagine all the weapons platforms you could make up with these parts:
* Fully auto or Select fire
* regular barrels in lengths from 11" to 22"
* heavy barrels in 14", 16" and 20"
* Suppressors for both regular and heavy barrels
* Fixed stocks, folding stocks, folding skeletal stocks
* ability to take M-16 mags or 100 round C Mags
* Iron sight standard, ability to take scopes and reflex sights
* Folding Bipod
* ability to take 203 launcher or newer 40mm launcher
* attachment rails on reciever and forend
* ability to attach a vertical fore grip
* ability to attach lights and lasers
This is what our military needs to do, not just go out an adopt another rifle/carbine combo.
And, the original post brought up a big point about how the infantry is getting killed more in Urban areas. Thats because of the stupid Humvee! It was never built as a fighting vehicle, and even uparmored, it will not protect a grunt from a RPG, large caliber bullet, mortor, or IED! The other problem is that when its been uparmored, it becomes to heavy to drive fast.
A while ago I remember listening to a talk radio show about the war, and how Humvees were being targeted because the enemy knows they are our weakest vehicle. many callers questiones what could be done, or who was to blame. One caller stated he worked for the DOD, and went on to tell how many folks at the Pentagon argued for sending M113 armored personel carriers over to Iraq to protect the troops, but the upper brass didn't want to use "OLD STUFF FROM VIETNAM" and wanted to use new Humvees!
I believe all troops on patrol should be inside Strikers, Bradleys, M113s, or the Marine's LAVs, or AAVP7s (Used to be called the LVTP7 when I was in) I hope whatever Officers or Politicians who refused to allow M113s into Iraq can't sleep at night knowing they are resonsible for unneccesary deaths!
That said, when I did a Guard Mail route, or traveled with Marine units, I usually carried a M-16 with a 203 launcher. I liked having the launcher, and being able to share mags with the Marines.
I saw advantages and disadvantages with each weapon in different situations. I never felt one was better or worse in general, just better suited to different situations. Both did the job when I pulled the trigger.
My take on equiping infantry units and how we fight current wars follows:
* We are currently fighting in 2 vastly different environments. One is longer range desert/mountains , and the other is Urban house to house. In addition, we have fought in Jungle environments, and we may have to fight in artic cold climates as well. One weapon does not really suit all these requirements. What works well for long range is a larger weapon with a longer barrel and a heavy large bullet operated with a scope in semi auto aimed shots.
What works best for house to house fighting is a smaller weapon, with a shorter barrel, used primarily in full auto, with a red dot or similar short distance but wide field of view scope.
Instead of issuing different weapons to troops depending on where they are stationed, or their missions, I think we need a weapon system that can change into different configs (like the Stoner weapon system)
For those not familiar, The Stoner weapon System was invented by Eugene Stoner, the guy who made the AR15/M16 rifles. He invisioned a complete weapon system that would allows carbines, rifles and machine guns to be based around a parts group. The weapons could be used as standard magazine fed, upside down (like a Bren) magazine fed, or even BELT fed. They had different barrels, stocks, etc and could be configurered into various weapon systems depending on the mission requirements. Because of politics, the weapon was never adopted for regular use by any branch of service, but found favor with the Navy Seals in Vietnam.
Ultimax has a great Light machine Gun in 223 that would be a good starting point for a new weapon system. Their Mk3 is fully auto, and the Mk4 is select fire. Both system have interchangable barrels (no tools needed) available in different lengths, and folding stocks available. While they don't allow for belt feeding (like the older Stoners did), with the advent of the CMag 100 round drums, belts would not really be necessary. Even the Marines are looking to replace their dual feed (belt and magazine) S A W with a magazine fed only gun.
Imagine being able to configure a weapon into:
* Long Range rifle with 22" barrel, Fixed stock and scope
* Medium range all around weapon with 18" barrel, fixed stock and Iron Sights
* MOUNT config with 14" barrel, folding skeleton stock and Reflex sight
* SpecOP machinepistol 11" barrel, no stock and Reflex sight
* Fully Auto LMG with 20" Heavy barrel, fixed stock, Red dot scope
* Fully Auto Small LMG with 16" heavy barrel, folding stock, and Reflex sight
AND MORE!
Imagine all the weapons platforms you could make up with these parts:
* Fully auto or Select fire
* regular barrels in lengths from 11" to 22"
* heavy barrels in 14", 16" and 20"
* Suppressors for both regular and heavy barrels
* Fixed stocks, folding stocks, folding skeletal stocks
* ability to take M-16 mags or 100 round C Mags
* Iron sight standard, ability to take scopes and reflex sights
* Folding Bipod
* ability to take 203 launcher or newer 40mm launcher
* attachment rails on reciever and forend
* ability to attach a vertical fore grip
* ability to attach lights and lasers
This is what our military needs to do, not just go out an adopt another rifle/carbine combo.
And, the original post brought up a big point about how the infantry is getting killed more in Urban areas. Thats because of the stupid Humvee! It was never built as a fighting vehicle, and even uparmored, it will not protect a grunt from a RPG, large caliber bullet, mortor, or IED! The other problem is that when its been uparmored, it becomes to heavy to drive fast.
A while ago I remember listening to a talk radio show about the war, and how Humvees were being targeted because the enemy knows they are our weakest vehicle. many callers questiones what could be done, or who was to blame. One caller stated he worked for the DOD, and went on to tell how many folks at the Pentagon argued for sending M113 armored personel carriers over to Iraq to protect the troops, but the upper brass didn't want to use "OLD STUFF FROM VIETNAM" and wanted to use new Humvees!
I believe all troops on patrol should be inside Strikers, Bradleys, M113s, or the Marine's LAVs, or AAVP7s (Used to be called the LVTP7 when I was in) I hope whatever Officers or Politicians who refused to allow M113s into Iraq can't sleep at night knowing they are resonsible for unneccesary deaths!
Yes yes yes, now on to the REAL question...
How are those Mosin-Nagants performing in the desert environment and is the 7.62X54R a better stopper than the 5.56?!
Before anyone gets in my face like I'm joking about the gun used to kill Americans, please recognize the regular Afghan army that we trained has the same rifle in some cases. I do NOT want to do anything to glorify the insurgency. I am curious as to the ballistic performance in combat of that particular round though... Just as a side note. Wouldn't want to thread hijack...
gp911
How are those Mosin-Nagants performing in the desert environment and is the 7.62X54R a better stopper than the 5.56?!
Before anyone gets in my face like I'm joking about the gun used to kill Americans, please recognize the regular Afghan army that we trained has the same rifle in some cases. I do NOT want to do anything to glorify the insurgency. I am curious as to the ballistic performance in combat of that particular round though... Just as a side note. Wouldn't want to thread hijack...
gp911
Lebben-B
Member
That would be the Stoner 63 system. The SEALs used them all they way up to the late '80's and only gave them up when there were practically no parts left to repair them.
Actually, there is. The Mk 262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 have 77 gr Open Tip Match(OTM) bullets. The tip has a small opening that enhances the accuracy of the round. That this opening provides better expansion and fragmentation than a standard M855/856 is merely a by-product.
Sadly, there isn't enough of it to go around.Mike
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Big Holes make Dead Souls.
The bigger the hole, the more trauma is inflicted.
This is why the military should go BACK to .45 ACP pistol and a 7.62 rifle.
Even an AR-15/M-16 variant that can use the 7.62 caliber.
So what if you have to carry LESS ammo. Just make better use of it.
Lots of guys get killed with unused clips in their magazine pouches, because the guy they shot kills them before he dies.
The bigger the hole, the more trauma is inflicted.
This is why the military should go BACK to .45 ACP pistol and a 7.62 rifle.
Even an AR-15/M-16 variant that can use the 7.62 caliber.
So what if you have to carry LESS ammo. Just make better use of it.
Lots of guys get killed with unused clips in their magazine pouches, because the guy they shot kills them before he dies.
Foxtrot427
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 512
If it were up to me, every soldier with a 20in bblw AR would get an M14 EBR or 6.5 XCR and the shorter bbl M16 fellas would get a shortened SCAR or an F2000.
Cosmoline
Member
The irony is we're already skirting Hague in spirit, if not overtly. The hollow tip ammo is one example. While allegedly not designed to expand on impact it has a pretty good chance of doing just that. The 5.56 ball is another example. It doesn't expand on impact, but when moving fast enough it can fall apart. This leads to tremendous wounds WHEN IT WORKS. And the shorter the barrel, the longer the range and harder the bullet the less chance there is it will fail on impact. Also, hoping that your bullet suffers a massive failure on impact isn't exactly brilliant. In fact it's idiotic, but then we are talking about the Pentagon here.
The DC "snipers" weren't snipers in any way, shape or form. They were shooting from a car trunk at unarmed civilians at fairly close range. If that's all we had to do as a military force we could arm our guys with .32-20's or .22 Win Mags and have excellent kill rates.
I feel the best way to get around Hague is to just start ignoring it. Bullets can be designed to expand on impact while still retaining the appearance and function of FMJ rounds. You can use two different kinds of metals, for example, or cover a hollow tip with a metal shield. If you do this and kick up from 5.56 to about 7mm or 6.5mm, you'll have an all around far more lethal and effective small arm--whether it's an AR or not.
The DC "snipers" weren't snipers in any way, shape or form. They were shooting from a car trunk at unarmed civilians at fairly close range. If that's all we had to do as a military force we could arm our guys with .32-20's or .22 Win Mags and have excellent kill rates.
I feel the best way to get around Hague is to just start ignoring it. Bullets can be designed to expand on impact while still retaining the appearance and function of FMJ rounds. You can use two different kinds of metals, for example, or cover a hollow tip with a metal shield. If you do this and kick up from 5.56 to about 7mm or 6.5mm, you'll have an all around far more lethal and effective small arm--whether it's an AR or not.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
=Cosmoline said:
Mk262 doesn't expand on impact. It yaws and tumbles, just like any other spitzer FMJ bullet used by any other nation. The hole in the tip is just an artifact of the way the bullet is constructed for accuracy. The wound profile is caused as a result of two things:
1) Because match bullets are made with great attention to uniformity, match bullets tend to yaw uniformly at about the same distance from batch to batch.
By comparison, M193 or M855 will yaw too late as often as 25% of the time - this often means the bullet exits before it yaws and even when it does yaw, the depth can vary - so the major part of the wound profile may not be in the ideal place.
2) Because match bullets emphasize a uniform thin jacket in construction, they tend to fragment when they yaw, even at lower velocities than the military ammo.
Cosmoline
Member
Well the point is you have to ask why a round which opens on impact is any different under Hague than a round which yaws with a good chance of partial or total fragmentation. Both of them are expanding and/or flattening in the human body.
It's just a stupid, stupid, stupid treaty. And it needs to be taken out and shot. With hollow points
It's just a stupid, stupid, stupid treaty. And it needs to be taken out and shot. With hollow points
rebelz
member
the scar rifles
what about hat skar or scar rifles that was supposed to replace the m-16?
what about hat skar or scar rifles that was supposed to replace the m-16?
cbsbyte
Member
TheFN SCAR is for special forces. At least for the time being.
Strings
Member
Actually, the "many different environments/battlefields" thing has a weapons platfomr already in production: the AR series...
Standard infantry? A2
Carbine? M4
PDW? Pistol upper
Designated marksman? scoped HBar
SAW: Shrike System upper
There really isn't all THAT much improvement needed to the design (I like the idea of a gas rod). And there are a multitude of calibers available...
And I've said the above MANY times...
Standard infantry? A2
Carbine? M4
PDW? Pistol upper
Designated marksman? scoped HBar
SAW: Shrike System upper
There really isn't all THAT much improvement needed to the design (I like the idea of a gas rod). And there are a multitude of calibers available...
And I've said the above MANY times...
I'd like to see several of the 5.56 uppers replaced by the 6.8mm it's a practical way to put more stopping power on a good platform. It wouldn't be viable for the entire Armed Services, but give them to the Grunts and Engineers.
As far as handing out M-14's & M1's, once again I have to say you're crazy, there isn't any thing wrong with the M16. The little black gun is here to stay, it's light, can cycle alot of ammo and do it acurately when in well trained hands. Just cause a Marine, Soldier or who ever goes to the rifle range and qualls once a year, doesn't mean they know how to effectively use that weapon. That is were this whole "M16 don't work" bussiness comes from, yup a 7.62 nato has alot more stopping power, but you'd have some sore boys with some banged up shoulders after fireing several hundred rounds over the course of a week, week after week.
You have to know your tools, and the military isn't doing a good enough job at it, but then again, that's what I do now. It's like shooting 3 round burst? If you feel the need to; aim for the crotch and it has a zipper effect... you need to know how to use your tools, not whine about them. FYI, I'm not allowed to teach how to use 3 round burst, is just a switch on the rifle to the Higher-Ups and a "waste of ammo".
As a guy who used to put more miles on the boots than his POV, the lighter the better. Light gun, Light Ammo, Light pack and maybe by the time your 4 years is up, you're knees, back and feet won't be messed up for the rest of your life and if you're lucky they won't call you back to do 4 more years.
Take into consideration we have the Vector Flaks, E-Sappi plates, side Sappi's, groin protector, neck yoke, Kevlar Shoulder thingys, double combat load, several M67's, array of smoke, Water, a MRE, IFAK, Knife's, Gerber's, NVG's, Pop-up flares, cemm-lights, glasses, goggles, Maps, batteries, zip-ties, Intersquad Radios, 4Omm assortments, the New Kevlars are Good though... and it reaches 140 degrees in the Sunni Triangle durring the summer by the way.
Not to mention the poor Radio Operator with a PRC119 on his back or the Engineer with half a satchel or a PSS-14 on his... and don't forget about your SAW's and A/SAW's... tack on a few more pounds for those guys, the Breacher's carrying a shottie/buck/slugs and a M16 and some demo, usally got a guy carring a 10lb sledge too, and a hooligan tool... all the while looking for men about to shoot at them, or looking for IED's or Running down bad men, walking down a road or street in a country they really don't want to be in. When you're lucky you do alot of traveling by truck or track, but then you're crawling in and out of 7 tons, hummers and in and out the hatches. Don't forget the Sgt, knee deep or the Lt trying to figure out were everyone is at, just to add a few more stress points... and if you're lucky you bring a few 0341's with for giggles and you're hauling around a couple mortars too.
From the above 3 paragraphs you can see I'm highly against adding any more weight, ever... unless it's more ammo, not heavier ammo, just more ammo.
Yup, you guys are thinking "cry me a river young buck". I'd be willing to bet Generation X-Box is hauling around more gear through the desert than any generation ever did! I'm not complaining, we have more capabilities than any generation ever did!
So as long as there's threads bashing the M16, I'll be here to defend it.
As far as handing out M-14's & M1's, once again I have to say you're crazy, there isn't any thing wrong with the M16. The little black gun is here to stay, it's light, can cycle alot of ammo and do it acurately when in well trained hands. Just cause a Marine, Soldier or who ever goes to the rifle range and qualls once a year, doesn't mean they know how to effectively use that weapon. That is were this whole "M16 don't work" bussiness comes from, yup a 7.62 nato has alot more stopping power, but you'd have some sore boys with some banged up shoulders after fireing several hundred rounds over the course of a week, week after week.
You have to know your tools, and the military isn't doing a good enough job at it, but then again, that's what I do now. It's like shooting 3 round burst? If you feel the need to; aim for the crotch and it has a zipper effect... you need to know how to use your tools, not whine about them. FYI, I'm not allowed to teach how to use 3 round burst, is just a switch on the rifle to the Higher-Ups and a "waste of ammo".
As a guy who used to put more miles on the boots than his POV, the lighter the better. Light gun, Light Ammo, Light pack and maybe by the time your 4 years is up, you're knees, back and feet won't be messed up for the rest of your life and if you're lucky they won't call you back to do 4 more years.
Take into consideration we have the Vector Flaks, E-Sappi plates, side Sappi's, groin protector, neck yoke, Kevlar Shoulder thingys, double combat load, several M67's, array of smoke, Water, a MRE, IFAK, Knife's, Gerber's, NVG's, Pop-up flares, cemm-lights, glasses, goggles, Maps, batteries, zip-ties, Intersquad Radios, 4Omm assortments, the New Kevlars are Good though... and it reaches 140 degrees in the Sunni Triangle durring the summer by the way.
Not to mention the poor Radio Operator with a PRC119 on his back or the Engineer with half a satchel or a PSS-14 on his... and don't forget about your SAW's and A/SAW's... tack on a few more pounds for those guys, the Breacher's carrying a shottie/buck/slugs and a M16 and some demo, usally got a guy carring a 10lb sledge too, and a hooligan tool... all the while looking for men about to shoot at them, or looking for IED's or Running down bad men, walking down a road or street in a country they really don't want to be in. When you're lucky you do alot of traveling by truck or track, but then you're crawling in and out of 7 tons, hummers and in and out the hatches. Don't forget the Sgt, knee deep or the Lt trying to figure out were everyone is at, just to add a few more stress points... and if you're lucky you bring a few 0341's with for giggles and you're hauling around a couple mortars too.
From the above 3 paragraphs you can see I'm highly against adding any more weight, ever... unless it's more ammo, not heavier ammo, just more ammo.
Yup, you guys are thinking "cry me a river young buck". I'd be willing to bet Generation X-Box is hauling around more gear through the desert than any generation ever did! I'm not complaining, we have more capabilities than any generation ever did!
So as long as there's threads bashing the M16, I'll be here to defend it.
DRZinn
Member
Sorry, but that's one of my "pet peeves."
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MichaelLevin.shtml
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20020524.htm
http://www.extremescience.com/hottest.htm
Those that survived and were around later to think about it proved it a wounder.Those guys were not snipers to call them that is to misuse the title,term and men like Carlos Hathcock who earned the badge of being a sniper.....the name was misapplied by our worthless press. They were ambushing murders......period. They should fry sadly we have become a nation afraid of a sharp stick so even people like Moussaoui don't get the death penalty.....but I digress.....in disgust with the sheep.
The original 55 grain bullet moving out of a 1-14 twist barrel was very unstable and had dramatic effects on flesh. These were the guns the advisors in Vietnam prior to the" Gulf of Tonkin " had. The accuracy however was not acceptable to the military and so we went to a 1-12 twist. The effect was less dramatic on flesh. The 1980s brought the M16 A2 with a 1-9 twist and a more stable heavier bullet at 62 grains. Now it really was a wounder......worse now we over stablize the round at 1-7 twist with bullets between a weight of 62 and 77 grains......All in the name of being humane. Rubbish, give the troops an effective weapon. There are great choices out there....but we continue to play with mouse guns.....
sSinsaba
Member
DocZinn said:
From your own source ( http://www.extremescience.com/hottest.htm )
... It is important to note that when atmospheric temperatures are recorded it is not the surface temperature, where it can sometimes reach 150° F/ 66° C, but rather the air temperature at about 5 feet (1.6 m) above the surface in an enclosed shelter...
I think that about says it all
Beachmaster
Member
The 6.8SPC was designed by a guy in the Special Forces, and was designed to be a Close Quarters Battle to 400 meter cartridge that would deliver increased lethality over a 223. While a good cartridge, it was not designed for longer (400-1000+ meters) and there is another one called the 6.5 Grendel that is getting a lot of press as a better choice over the 6.8.
The 6.5 Grendel was designed as a long range cartridge for target and hunting in an AR type platform, and offers superior ballistics over the 6.8, especially at longer ranges. Just about every gun mag has done a 6.5 verses 6.8 article in the last few months.
In this months Special Weapons for Military and Police magazine I got the following comparisons:
At 100 yards, the 6.8 with a 115 grain bullet has a velocity of 2417 Feet Per Second and an energy of 1492 Foot Pounds
At 100 yards the 6.5 Grendel with a 123 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600 fps and an energy of 1846 fpe
At 800 yards, the 6.8 has a velocity of 1055 fps and an energy of 284 fpe
At 800 yards, the 6.5 Grendel has a velocity of 1410 fps and an energy of 543 fpe
While a larger caliber would be a good choice for our military, I don't think adding a different one into the inventory that would be used in M16 style weapons would be wise. Troops might get issued the wrong ammo, or worse, try to stick the wrong ammo into a weapon. In a firefight, troops with different weapons would not be able to share ammo. In fact, the 6.8 looks so much like a 223, I would not be surprised if the military have already had an incident with mistaking 6.8 and 223.
If our military feels the 223 does not cut it, then they should switch ALL rifles to the new round so there are no mistakes. If they stay with the M16 platform, then the 6.5 might be a good idea. Or they could go with the 6.5 with the Ultimax type weapon system, or "UPGRADE" back to a 7.62 that is a proven cartridge.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
This is utter gun shop mythology and has no basis in fact. Anyone making this statement has not investigated either basic physics or the issue. Once again, ALL spitzer shape bullets tumble in flesh. It is the basic physics of what it takes to stabilize a round in air vs. what it takes to stabilize a round in a primarily water-based medium. The difference between 1-14 twist and 1-12 twist has no effect on the wounding ability of the M193 55gr FMJ.
Again, this is pure gun shop mythology. The M16A2 was never issued as a 1/9 twist. The M855 bullet actually fragments at pretty much the same ranges as the M193, the major difference is because of the more complex construction of the bullet (steel penetrator) jacket thickness varies widely from lot to lot and some lots fragment while others do not.
Here is a great site as reference:
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm
A lot of well-informed people who are professionals in the field of terminal ballistics took the time to put information together to dispel some of the more common myths being distributed out there. I recommend you give it a read because it addresses all of the myths you have brought up today.
- Status
Similar threads
