US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Marine1, May 27, 2008.

  1. Marine1

    Marine1 G&G Newbie

  2. I am confused . . .

    . . . . as to the purpose of posting all these news stories.
    Please advise.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2008

  3. Now if you lot (the Americans) had listened to the Brits at the time, you would have adopted the .280 round rather that the T65 7.62 nato and realized then that we were talking sense!! Easier to control in a full auto rifle than the 7.62 and more accurate and better stopping than the 5.56!







    Will I get a rise???
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2008
  4. Marine1

    Marine1 G&G Newbie

    First of all...respectfully speaking...

    A. I am under the impression that this thread is a Military Veterans Forum-(the story is military related.)

    B. It concerns troops current weapons calibers and their useages in Iraq. (This too, is military related.)

    C. Are you asking me this question in a moderator capacity, sir?

    D, If you are not a moderator, or staff member...Your question(s) are most perplexing to me, and most likely, to other veterans on this forum who would like to know this and other new military information?
     
  5. Hello Marine1

    Respectfully replying . . .

    I am not a moderator.
    I was simply curious.
    Should you and other veterans/forum members find the news postings beneficial then I congratulate you on fulfilling a need.
    A question can sometimes simply be a question although in our
    time I do understand a question is often a not-so-subtle
    criticism. Mine was just a question and nothing more.

    Have a great day and I wish you all the best.
     
  6. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Long time

    Marine1: Sir; we knew this a long time ago. I had no idea. US must have a bunch sitting around to burn up?
     
  7. Silent Shooter

    Silent Shooter G&G Newbie

    292
    1
    For CQB it is a piece of crap, has been a piece of crap, and will continue to be a piece of crap. I wish they would switch over to the 6.8. I have talked to soldiers in Iraq that have told about having to shoot them up to 5 times to get them to drop. Tragic.
     
  8. Cyrano

    Cyrano Resident Curmudgeon Forum Contributor

    28,030
    16,959
    New York
    Ever since the first reports came back for Vietnam of the multiple failings of the M16 and its 5.56 NATO round (firsthand reports from soldiers recuperating in an Army hospital ward where my cousin was being put back together, by the way - and I learned a whole lot of new words listening to them cuss about the POS M16), I have maintained that the bastardization of Eugene Stoner's AR-10 into the M16 is an idea whose time has went. You don't put a cartridge developed to hunt varmints at comparatively short ranges into service as a battle rifle cartridge, not if you have any brains! The solution to the troubles the Army was having in Vietnam would have been to drop the M14 action into a synthetic stock, not to issue a weapon not up to the job!

    For the past 40 years the US Army has been fiddling with the M16. They've put hotter powders into the cartridge case. They've chromed the barrels and the chambers. They've developed "tumbling bullets." They've invented all sorts of doohickeys to hang in the rifle, many of which are actually good inventions, e.g., the Picatinney rail. They've sunk, depending on who you talk to, anywhere from $26 million to $56 million into M16 R&D. But the fact remains that in essence they have spent all that money to gild a turd.

    They have relearned, for the second or third time yet, the lesson that you need bullets that will stop and drop an enemy with one shot. The 5.56 NATO round won't do it reliably even at short ranges. It's time to get a new battle rifle that shoots a bullet that will stop an enemy with one shot no matter where you hit him, either dead or wounded too badly to continue to fight. The 7.62 NATO round will do it, with the right bullet in it. So will the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. If the Army is hopelessly wedded to the Stoner action, got to the AR-10 as he tried to get them to adopt way back when. A better choice might be the new Masada from Magpul. Or the IDI's Tavor, appropriately scaled up. But for the sake of our soldiers, it's past time to dump the Poodle Shooter in favor of something that WORKS!
     
  9. Marine1

    Marine1 G&G Newbie

    As a Vietnam era veteran...exactly my point with this posting, Cyrano...thank you, and well presented. I'm not an expert on the M16. I carried and fired thousands of rounds through both the M16 and the A1-A2 models. I have toted the (.30-06 M1 Garand), The (30-06 B.A.R.), The (.45 caliber) M3-A1 GM Guide Lamp Submachine Gun, The (.45 Auto) M1911A1 pistol. In Vietnam, many of the first troops were armed with M16's, which had been designed without forward assists. Many of these GI's were KIA'ed due to powder residue build up in the rifle's chambers... preventing the bolt from fully closing, and seating on the next round. Some with their weapons were found dismantled, beside their bodies, attempting to clear the problem. This was a hush-hush factor and covered up. Then the forward assist was incorporated and later adopted. The bullet: A 5.56mm (.223) is not suited for impact (stopping power) under combat conditions...(ie) one shot-one stop-kill, when you have masses of enemy troops assaulting your positions, eyeball to eyeball. Some were equiped with (20) round and later (30) round magazines... (at 2-3 rounds per kill)... a magazine does not last very long is an outright.... adrenaline flowing like sweat... firefight. It's a outright... kill or be killed.... situation. Yes.. you have fire-power, with the M16 - 5.56mm round... but no impact-stopping power, such as with the .45 auto, 7.62 or higher designed rounds, such as the 30-06. Examine the weapons and bullets of the World Wars? Where's the varmit round? They knew better.. even in those days. We see .45 Autos, .30.06, .303, 7.35, 7.62, (ect)... (even the enemy's weapons had stopping power, with their main battlerifle rounds.) The 5.56 - .223 round must be replaced with a more suitable stopping power round. I would rather carry an AK-47 rather that an M16 in a combat situation. (Click Here): 7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO Really Need Two Standard Why was the .45 auto pistol round dropped and replaced by the lesser stopping-powered 9MM pistol round ??? Magazine Capacity? Cost? Wearwithall? No... it's called....P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. The M1911, which has proved itself in combat "since 1917", could have been modified, (as Para-Ordnance proved it could be done)... to accept a high capacity magazine, with a few simple modifications to it's original design. How much is a soldier's life worth in a combat situation? There is "NO" price high enough, afaiac! We must give them the proper tools, and they will get the job finished....(quote): Winston Churchhill...."Give us the tools, and we will finish the job"..(un-quote). Just my opinion on this subject.
     
  10. Yep. Round here that's known as puttin lipstick on a pig. The government has put so much money in this plastic pile-o-crap they can't admit they've been wrong for 40 years.
     
  11. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    How long before people realize that it does exactly what it was made for, and does it very well?

    External ballistics in normal engagement ranges is pretty durn good.

    Terminal ballistics is excellent. Far superior to both 7.62x39 and 51.

    The only failing is it is poor when talking about intermediate barrier penetration.
     
  12. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    15,238
    15
    My favorite military blunders in firearms are the smoothbore muskets in the revolutionary war followed by the singleshot rifled musket in the civil war,followed by the breechloading .45-70 and Colt army .45 instead of the Winchester lever action and S&W #3 breakopen self eject,followed by the Krag Jorgenson instead of Mauser style with stripper clips in the Spanish American war,followed by taking sidearms from the army in the second WW,followed by issuing the M16 in Viet Nam,followed by adopting the 9mm--There are others but these are some of the better ones.It always seems like the less capable a weapons system is for combat,the more apt they are to adopt it.One of the big ones was when they decided fighter planes didnt need machine guns. sam.
     
  13. oldjarhead

    oldjarhead G&G Evangelist

    8,553
    636
    MO
    Doubt it, Wun.
     
  14. Silent Shooter

    Silent Shooter G&G Newbie

    292
    1
    When are people going to realize that the government lies to soldiers to make them think they have the best equipment?

    .223 vs Watermelon
    [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=YS-Hf082OHc&feature=related]YouTube - Watermelon vs .223[/ame]

    .308 vs Watermelon
    [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=zciiHW1sUoE]YouTube - Watermelon Violence[/ame]

    .50 Beowolf vs Watermelon
    [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=1DDVnrESOk0&feature=related]YouTube - 50 Cal Beowulf vs Watermelon .50 cal[/ame]

    [ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=zciiHW1sUoE"][/ame]

    Any questions???
     
  15. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    When are people going to realize that watermelons are not flesh and bone? Also know that a .223 is not the same round as 5.56! Just like .308 is not a 7.62x51!

    5.45x39
    [​IMG]
    M193 5.56x45
    [​IMG]
    M855 5.56x45
    [​IMG]
    7.62x39
    [​IMG]
    7.62x51
    [​IMG]

    The reason water jugs and watermelons come apart like that is because there is more hydrostatic effect in these mediums. Hydrostatic shock does not wound or cause damage in flesh. As can be seen in recent studies done by the FBI crime lab.

    The only thing that matters is the final cavitation. That is it.

    Ballistic gel tears where flesh does not. This is why you have to conduct your testing in both mediums.

    Watermelons are cool and fine for Mail Call. But hardly worth the effort when discussing terminal ballistics.

    So in short. 5.56 only underperforms at intermediate barrier penetration, but that is ok (for now) because we work in combined arms, and right now, if we can not see them, we can’t shoot at em.

    Any questions?
    [/FONT]

    Here is some information on the individual that revolutionized the study of terminal ballistics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Fackler

     
    Last edited: May 28, 2008
  16. Silent Shooter

    Silent Shooter G&G Newbie

    292
    1
    Yep. Would you take a .223 wild pig (Large) hunting???
     
  17. Bravo

    Bravo G&G Newbie

    As far as a human target at 200 yards is concerned, they are the same.
     
  18. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    No I would not take a .223 hunting boar. But I would and have used 5.56x45 for boar. It seems like you are having a hard time telling the difference.

    5.56 is loaded to a higher chamber pressure than .223 win. Thus higher velocity. Thus fragmentation occurs in target with the 5.56. The .223 does not. So if you are using your experience with .223 win, then you are using completely faulty data. .223 makes an ice pick type wound. 5.56 does not.

    No they are not. Both the 5.56 and 7.62 are loaded to higher chamber pressures than their civilian brothers. They also have thicker casings. As such ballistics is completely different. As I already explained above. Because .223 is slower it does not come apart in the target. As .308 is slower it will yaw in body later. Also not only is the round different. But the barrels for each are different. A weapon chambered in either 5.56 or 7.62 have longer leade lengths and obviously are built to handle the higher chamber pressures than their civilian brothers. This is why you are not supposed to fire 5.56 or 7.62 from a weapon chambered in .223 or .308. You can fire .308 or .223 from their military brothers, but you will suffer losses in accuracy because of the difference in leade lengths.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2008
  19. I thought that the slower moving bullet .223 as you said, tumbles and key holes as it pass thru flesh (body) creating a larger wound cavity. Education please.