The M-16 Soldiers On

[gopguy]

Hi Bart,

I don't really hang out in gunshops, wish I had the time to do that. I do however hang with a bunch of vets in my free time. But you are correct in that I mistakenly said the M16 A2 had a 1-9 twist barrel, I should have said the AR 15 A2 did. I concede that. However a number of European armies use 1-9 twist barrels on their weapons. We use a 1-7. However at the risk of the ire of the boys at Ammo Oracle I still stick to what I said about stability and lethality and bullet weight. If I am wrong then I am in good company, as a number of firearm authorities have written on the subject. I include Blake Stevens the late Edward Ezell. If memory serve I think read the same from Chuck Taylor and Ken Hackathorn as well as some other authorities, whom I respect.

As to the fellows that put ammo oracle together I read some things I agreed with and some that I did not. They rely on a lot of Gelatin and Fackler's theories in their arguments....I will agree that they did a lot of work. But I don't agree with all the conclusions. Just because Dr.Martin Fackler says it does not make it true, don't get me wrong. I respect him, I just don't always agree with him. There are also folks that don't agree with Ed Sanow and Evan Marshall or the conclusions of the Strasburg Goat tests...And they all have quite a bit of documentation too.

On the other hand I know some of Vets from Vietnam, Grenada the first and second Gulf Wars....Collectively they shot quite a few folks, who were shooting back. Not jello. I find thier conclusions more germaine to the real world situation we find ourselves in. Some of them used the 14 in Vietnam, most used the M-16 in its various guises right up to the M4. When my Marine Corps buddies who just got back from Iraq and Afghanistan are pining for the 7.62NATO round....I have to conclude there is a good reason. The 5.56 no matter its weight or platform launching it, is generally inadequate for service use.

 

[pdowg881]

The HK416 looks good. Gotta get me one of those
http://armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/real/HK416002.ram
check out that video

 

[Number 6]

Big Holes make Dead Souls.

The bigger the hole, the more trauma is inflicted.

By this logic a .30 Carbine round would be just as effective as a 7.62x51 round, and .38 special would be more effective. There is more to the science of an effective cartridge than the size of the hole..

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If I am wrong then I am in good company, as a number of firearm authorities have written on the subject. I include Blake Stevens the late Edward Ezell. If memory serve I think read the same from Chuck Taylor and Ken Hackathorn as well as some other authorities, whom I respect.

You're wrong and so are they if they said that. You asserted that the change from 1-14 to 1-12 made the same 55gr M193 FMJ projectile more stable in flesh and that as a result, the wound profile was less dramatic.

First, the change from 1-14 to 1-12 was to stabilize the projectile under artic conditions. In very cold weather the 1-14 twist was insufficient to stabilize the 55gr round. So the twist was switched to 1-12. Do you understand why this is relevant? How much denser is air that is -40F than air that is 70F? Not a lot right?

Now consider, how much denser is something that is 90% water? Yet you are contending that the same round that was unstable in 1-14 is somehow stable with only a change to 1-12. That defies basic physics. The 55FMJ is going to be equally unstable whether fired from 1-14 or 1-12 because tissue is composed primarily of water which is over 100 times denser than air and neither twist is sufficient to stabilize 55FMJ in water.

Just because Dr.Martin Fackler says it does not make it true, don't get me wrong. I respect him, I just don't always agree with him. There are also folks that don't agree with Ed Sanow and Evan Marshall or the conclusions of the Strasburg Goat tests...And they all have quite a bit of documentation too.

We aren't talking about opinion here; but scientific fact. You can have any opinion you like; but it doesn't change how physics work.

On the other hand I know some of Vets from Vietnam, Grenada the first and second Gulf Wars....Collectively they shot quite a few folks, who were shooting back.

And how many of these vets that you know used both 1-14 and 1-12 twist M16 rifles to shoot people and then relayed that anecdotal information to you in such a way that you decided their opinion was more solid than elementary physics? How many people did each shoot with each type of twist? Pretty big sample size there?

The 5.56 no matter its weight or platform launching it, is generally inadequate for service use.

That is an entirely different matter from the one I corrected you on; but I don't see much point in discussing something that does have an element of opinion and uncertainty to it when you don't seem to believe that the universe you live in operates under the same principles of physics as the one I live in.

 

[GoRon]

The 5.56 no matter its weight or platform launching it, is generally inadequate for service use.

If that were true the debate about it would have ended years ago.

Yet the debate rages on and the 5.56 continues to kill bad guys.

Same goes for the platform (M16/M4), while the debate rages it is used and used effectively.

 

[KC&97TA]

Pet Peeve about weather? ... I can't help it: I think I know how hot it was, sorry I didn't measure it properly as defined by the weather center, but the weather center isn't beeing shot at or blown up either, Marines aren't in a box 5' off the ground enclosed by louvers allowing air flow. Maybe I should have said, "please don't make our gear any heavier in the 160*F, after the heat index is taken into account and sweating our family jewels off, we carry enough gear the way it is".

This 6.5 cartridge is worth takeing a look at, have to keep an eye on it, do a bit more research.

Real deal, the M16 isn't going any were. 5.56mm will live on for ever. There's a better chance that the M9 will go away and be replaced by a 1911 .45acp before the M16 is replaced. Although, replaceing our current Green Ball rounds... would be financially and logistically a better idea.

We had these cool little blackish/grey bullets when we first got back to Iraq in 2004, guess they were some kind of AP that was a real hamburger maker, but they were taken back and shipped off by the ammo tech.

Personally, 5.56mm will kill, it's the "hits that count", seen it in person, bad guy's getting picked off by Marines. There's so much hear say, "people don't die when shot with .223" They sure do, won't lift them off thier feel like a .50 will, but they fall down when shot in the chest at 2-200 yards. As far as a CBQ round... you know how many rounds get fired in CQB, LOL... why do you think we have the M16/M41.

We need to teach the tools, not re-tool.

 

[gopguy]

Bart Roberts wrote" You asserted that the change from 1-14 to 1-12 made the same 55gr M193 FMJ projectile more stable in flesh and that as a result, the wound profile was less dramatic."

I understand what you are saying about air density and I am not talking about a direct contact wound at point blank range.

I am saying a 55gr bullet launched from a 1-14, that is already starting to keyhole or tumbling due to instability prior to striking flesh at 3000 fps is going to do more damage.

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying the 55 gr. bullet that is in a more stable flight pattern launched from a 1-12 striking flesh at say 100 yards is not going to create a wound less dramatic than the same bullet in a less stable flight pattern launched from a 1-14 twist barrel striking flesh. Right? I disagree with that.

We aren't talking about opinion here; but scientific fact. You can have any opinion you like; but it doesn't change how physics work.

As someone who is married to a doctor I don't always buy the this is science argument to settle something. I have a bunch of scientists telling me humans cause global warming too but I don't buy it either.

I wrote;The 5.56 no matter its weight or platform launching it, is generally inadequate for service use.

This went back to the point I was making earlier in the argument before you jumped in, and thus was not aimed at you. Earlier in this thread I argued we would be better off using the 7.62 NATO and the .45acp. I still stand behind that.