Concern Growing Over U.S. Troops' Ammo

[ECH1969]

As American troop casualties in Iraq continue to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle.

In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a pistol to finally bring him down. But before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more.

"The lack of the lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony Milavic. Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy.

In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

http://kutv.com/topstories/topstories_story_158201927.html

[Kagemusha]

1. The "seven times" thing is a dead ringer for a story from Somalia

I read about it from the article series upon which the book Black Hawk Down was derived. It should be noted for context that relatively few US soldiers die from bullets in this conflict. Which is a credit to body armor, helmets etc, and the power of US weaponry *besides* the M-16 which made insurgents use roadside bombs a lot.

Which, unfortunately, is working out rather well for them.

[enfield collector]

115. roger that, the somalies were all

fucked up on khat, a kind of amphetamine, so they kept charging after being shot

[Downtown Hound]

2. To anyone who's ever read the book Black Hawk Down

and not just seen the propagandistic movie, this issue is nothing new. The American military had the same problem in Somalia, sometimes having to shoot so many bullets in their attackers that they blew them apart.

A defense budget approaching half a trillion dollars a year, and our troops don't even have the right kinds of bullets. God Bless America.

[hobbit709]

3. If you've ever seen someone hit by

an M16 round, you'd realize immediately that it's quite effective. They're picking up AKs for the same reason they did in Nam. M16 piece of crap, AK fires no matter what.

[tabasco]

39. Absolutely. The M16 is extremely lethal.

And very accurate. A bigger round might be better for this city fighting though.

[TomInTib]

4. We used 47s whenever we could get them

in Vietnam.

M16 rounds take too long to kill. No knockdown power to speak of.

We used shotguns, too (I still have my Ithaca 12).

[Javaman]

16. I heard some amazing stories about AK-47's and...

it's ability to work under any sort of conditions.

One guy I knew who served in Viet Nam said, he and his platoon were on patrol and they found a cache of AK-47's in a running river. They were covered in grease and wrapped in a blanket. They picked up the guns, wiped off the grease and fired them right off the bat. Same guy, later on, got a purple heart because his M-16 jammed during a firefight and tried to clear the mag, but because of the adrenaline pumping through his body, didn't realize that he grabbed the muzzle of the gun and fried his hands.

[Captain Hilts]

63. A friend who was in VN said you could find an AK47 in a puddle of mud...

shake it out, and it would fire.

The M16 is a GREAT weapon - in a sterile laboratory.

[Earth_First]

5. Easy there soldier. If the DOD determines that you were utilizing an AK47

instead of your government issued M16A1/2 you forefit your SGLI benefits...

[BrotherBuzz]

7. So Lt. Col. Mark Young's boys lost their SGLI benefits?

U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s

Sun Aug 24, 2:15 PM ET  

By ANDREW ENGLAND, Associated Press Writer

<snip>

BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of
an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and
pulls the trigger.

<snip>

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our
soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to
have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency
with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said
Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th
Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks.
Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young
said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions
that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but
we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."

In Humvees, on tanks ? but never openly on base ? U.S.
soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first
developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around
the world.

<more>

http://www.ak-47.net/currentnews.html

[Earth_First]

9. I'll look into it...however...

Back when Dragon Skin body armor was making headlines and it was determined that soldiers using Dragon Skin would further be fore fitting SGLI benefits if they were wearing armor that was not issued by the government. Using the same logic, the same would apply to your weapon in combat.

I'll look into it.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. I'm wondering whether we have a new scandal

in the works.

Perhaps contractors using substandard materials?

The M-16 round may be the same size as a .22 (.223 actually), but it has a Hell of a lot more kinetic energy (1138 fps vs. 2800 fps).

If somebody is using bad materials, we might see that velocity fall dramatically.

[NYC]

59. Where are the bullets made? Serious question.

A while back, I read that the U.S. was running out of bullets, so was ordering more from China.

I don't remember where I read that, and have lost the bookmarks.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. I don't know

I vaguely remember the same thing, that we were buying 5.56mm ammo from other countries.

[yorgatron]

73. turns out some of it is made in Israel.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has176250.000/has176250_0.HTM
scroll down to page 22,that's where they 1st mention outsourcing.
the manufacturer is named around page 25 or so.

[davepc]

8. This same issue rears its head every conflict since Vietnam

the 5.56 round can do the job.

In ballistics circles there are camps who argue for a larger round, and others who say the M-4/M-16 round is adequate, they've been arguing about it since the 1960's in a kind of Ford v Chevy or Apple v Microsoft debate.

[ret5hd]

10. well, is the AK the ford-apple or the chevy-microsoft?

'cause god knows neither ford-microsoft nor apple-chevy makes ANY sense whatsoever.

[davepc]

11. the point is that there isn't a right answer. both involve trade offs...

and their own advantages/disadvantages.

soldiers can carry more 5.56 ammo then 7.62 cause its lighter, but the knockdown power of the 7.62 round might be better.

but past that there are whole issues of interchangeability and supply chains and load carrying gear.

Some people swear by the AR-15 platform/5.56 round, and there are others who think the biggest mistake the Army ever made was stopping use of the M-14.

[saigon68]

18. Try to carry an M-14 all day with hundreds of rounds

Good luck.

[alfredo]

28. the M14 was a big rifle. It worked well, but yes I can see where

carrying it and the larger rounds would be a pain.

I qualified on the M14, but when I was sent overseas I was issued an M1 carbine and old ammo of Korean war vintage. You pull the trigger, stand up, point the muzzle to the ground and shake the round out of the barrel. It wasn't that bad, but there were a lot of misfires. I did like the M1.

I have a ringing in my right ear (left handed) from that damn M14. They didn't issue earplugs so a lot of us have a bit of hearing loss. I started using cigarette filters, but the damage had already been done.

[saigon68]

30. We used cigarette filters

They were marginally OK for the range. Worthless any where else. Who would go into combat with cigarette filters ?

The M-14 is really loud compared to an M-16

[alfredo]

31. I didn't have to go in combat. I got sent to Africa.

I signed up for Nam, but you know how the Army works.

USASA O5H20.

[saigon68]

32. As it turned out-- You didn't miss much

The effect I had was

1. putting ones hand into a bucket of water

2. withdrawing the hand

3. looking for the hole that was left

[alfredo]

35. LoL By the time I left the service, the insiders were coming to

the realization that the war was un-winnable.

Our concern was preventing WWIII from breaking out over the mid east.

You can read about us in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets." We were mentioned in the chapter dealing with the USS Liberty murders.

BTW, one of my spook buddies made a serious mistake while in Vietnam. He mentioned that he could send and receive morse code. The next thing he knew he was being dropped behind the enemy lines with a bunch of crazy, whacked out rangers. He had dodged the bullet when his orders for duty upon the USS Liberty were delayed, but ended up in a very bad situation. He got separated from his unit and spent two weeks doing escape and evasion from the cong. He made it to the pickup location in the nick of time. He lost forty pounds during his ordeal.

All he was armed with was a 9MM and a key pad for sending dits.

[catmandu57]

65. A good friend of mine was in there 66/67

He told me about the bullets fired from 16s bouncing off the leaves in the jungle and all the problems they encountered with them. he said he found a thompson and carried that, the noise alone was worth it.

[sidpleasant]

68. M-14 vs. AR-15

My late father was part of the team that evaluated the AR-15 for the Department of Defense, way back in the first few years of the Sixties. He was a Marine NCO involved with ammunition and ordinance, stationed at the Marines' HQ in Arlington, and had been marksmanship champion of the service for several years in the previous decade. Anyway, as he told the story the evaluation team recommended that the AR-15 replace the carbine as the weapon for officers, MPs, tank crews, and so forth. No one preferred it to the M-14 for combat soldiers. My Dad was "horrified" (his exact word) when he learned that Defense Secretary Macnamara decided to over - rule the experts' recommendation.

[SC-Texas]

98. Experts? What Experts?

So who were the "Experts"?

Where these the same experts that picked the FN-FAL over the M-14? They don't sound very "Expert" there.

That is the reason that the M-16 got fast tracked into production- becasue the military was full of "EXPERTS" who made wrong decisions that favored local manufctureres even if the locals didn't produce the best weapon systems.

Now, the Fast tracking of hte M-16 casued its own problems and it prolonged the development of the wespon system for an extra 5 + years.

[enfield collector]

114. I think you mean the experts that picked

the M14 over the FAL. FAL is a much better battle rifle which is why it was used by 90+ countries around the world and is still in use by some of them. M14 is a better target rifle.

[benEzra]

55. The M16 is the mini Cooper

is the AK the ford-apple or the chevy-microsoft

The M16 is the mini Cooper and the AK is a John Deere tractor...

[fshrink]

48. And Korea.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. One more reason to get the fuck out of there.

We can best straighten this mess out back here stateside.

[Pavulon]

13. 556 nato

will fragment and kill. It is a trade off of capacity, recoil, and energy that makes a rifle round what it is.

The ak round is heavier, slower, and drops more. The 223 is faster and flatter. No one wants to get hit with either. A 556 will take your head off or turn your organs to jelly.

Most rounds fired in true combat are cover fire. A soldier can carry much more 556 nato than he can 308. I would rather carry an m16 than an m14. Your carry capacity is almost 3 times and a hit from either takes a person out of the fight.

Both have their purpose.

Any one who hunts knows that shot placement is key. A miss with a 300 win mag is less effective than a 243 hit. Easier said than done when someone is spraying ak rounds at you.

This has been the talk for many years. Everyone hated the m9 vs the old 1911. The military would be using the 1903 springfield if this stuff was taken to heart. Bottom line both will kill. The green tip round used was a solid, non expanding round. It used velocity to fragment and cause death. The old a2 I was issued did not jam. A clean rifle is a happy rifle.

This is a push to get a 6.x round onto the stoner platform.

My 2 cents and opinions from guys who had the displeasure of the real thing.

[benEzra]

38. 55-grain 5.56x45 fragmented very well...

but the U.S. doesn't use that anymore. The DoD switched over to the 62-gr SS109-style bullet years ago, which has a significantly lower velocity and is much less prone to fragment, particularly when fired out of carbines rather than full-length rifles.

[Pavulon]

40. I had read that

I do not keep up with current issue gear all that much. However I believe there has been a push for 6.8 mm variants on the stoner platform. I never had problems with an a2 rifle. The older guys said it was a vast improvement over the a1 vietnam era rifle. The rifle I had was probably half my age at the time and never failed to fire or jammed. These were not combat conditions however. Some guys were issued m4's to fit in vehicles. They had no problems but they were not really used.

Don't know where this stands in the real world. However I have done a good bit of shooting of the 22-250(same cal diff case) and can say it is accurate and would not want to get hit with either a 556 nato round or a ak round.

[Rex]

14. 135,000 troops cannot hold Iraq.

Rummy is really doing a bang up job.

[davepc]

15. so switching to a larger round would improve things?

[Rex]

47. No it won't improve a thing, just will make matters worse.

All I'm saying is we sent 500,000 troops into Iraq in GW I, and that was just to take down Saddam's army. This time around we send 135,000 to hold not a city, but the whole fucking country! So what, I guess Rummy figures bigger is better. It would take a million troops to hold Iraq, rifle ordinance will be negligible in the bigger picture.

[sendero]

17. I'm not sure about this..

... I've done a bit of reading on the subject. The .223 round is considered by many, and verified by tests shooting into gelatin, to be almost OPTIMAL to penetrating the human body and doing damage.

Do they typically use HP or FMJ rounds in Iraq? One would hope the HP.

Ammo selection is a trade-off. The larger 7.62 round packs more wallop, but will "drop" more making it less accurate for long-distance shots. I find it hard to believe that our military is making another blunder of this sort. Or do I? :)

[TX-RAT]

20. HP's illegal

[sendero]

21. Seems kinda silly doesn't it?

If you are shooting someone in a war you want them to die. I assume you are referring to Geneva conventions or somesuch?

[TX-RAT]

24. I agree on the silly part

Geneva Convention restricts to FMJ, with exception to APR rounds i believe.

[slackmaster]

26. Even the AP and incendiary, etc. rounds are fully jacketed

:nuke:

[slackmaster]

25. Yes, one of the Geneva Conventions bans hollow-point ammo

But the military prefers full metal jacket rounds anyway because they feed more reliably in autoloading weapons.

[sendero]

27. Good point..

... I'm pretty sure the tests I read about used FMJ rounds, and were designed to determine what the best caliber for (the intended purpose) would be.

[benEzra]

57. I think that was actually the Hague

I think that was actually the Hague accords, which were written with high-powered .30-caliber rifles in mind. From the Ammo Oracle (temporarily offline at the moment, so I'll post the relevant portion):

Q. Isn't against the Geneva Convention for the Military to use hollowpoint or fragmenting ammo?

You probably mean the Hague Peace Conference held in July 1899. That was when "bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body" were first proscribed. The United States was never a signatory to the Hague Peace Conference which meant that not only could the United States use those rounds but also that if the US entered a conflict all the other parties could use them too.

The United States did, however, sign the Hague Convention 1907, Article 23(e) which forbade: "...arms, projectiles, or material (sic) calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." As a result, US snipers used M-118 ammo, a "Match" version of M-80 ball. (7.62×51mm 173-grain solid-tipped boat tail).

In late 1985, the Judge Advocate General wrote an opinion which affirmed that expanding ammo was legal for the US to use in operations "not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State" (like counter terrorist operations, for example).

In 1990, another opinion permitted the use of the Sierra MatchKing hollowpoint round by US snipers, reasoning that it was not designed to expand or fragment and that the hollowpoint design was a result of the requirements for manufacturing super-accurate bullets.

Then in 1993 Special Operations Command was given the go-ahead by the Judge Advocate General to equip their forces with JHP rounds (Winchester "Black Talon" at the time) for their H&K MK 23 pistols.

[renegade000]

58. theoretically wounding someone

would cause a bigger drain on the enemy's resources (medical treatment, rehab, etc), of course this is not really applicable to the current situation.

[realisticphish]

19. This reminds me of WWII

and the M-1 Carbine. There are stories of Marines watching bullets bounce off Japanese soldiers, due to their underpowering.

[TX-RAT]

22. Soldiers story

A group of us took about a dozen soldiers from Ft Hood on a hog hunt in South TX. All of these men had done tours either in Afghanistan or Iraq, all had been wounded and were recovering from their wounds or had recovered. Lots of story's were told, but one they were all in agreement on, was the deficiency of the 5.56. It's lack of knock down power and it's inability to penetrate the thinest of dirt wall. When asked what would be their weapon of choice it was unanimous, M-14 in .308.

[benEzra]

43. Probably apocryphal...

considering the .30 Carbine has more kinetic energy than a .357 Magnum fired from a revolver.

Compared to .30-06, it's puny, but compared to a handgun, it's actually pretty potent.

[Captain Hilts]

64. I was told the M-1 "would take the bark off a tree." It was too much ...

for most people and "ruinned the shoulders of a generation."

[realisticphish]

67. well

i believe that's in reference to the Gerande, not the carbine, but I could be wrong :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

69. You are correct. The Garand is the beast, not the carbine. nt

[TX-RAT]

71. And it consumed thumbs, at an astounding rate.

[Captain Hilts]

79. Oh, I forgot about that. But his doctors said the M-1 Garand

"ruined the shoulders of an entire generation."

When he went to the doctor, the doctor took one look at him and said, "you fired the M-1, didn't you?" Yep. That was Korea and after. He killed more people with the telephone in Vietnam. That was easier on his shoulder.

[benEzra]

85. The M1 Garand fired the .30-06 Springfield cartridge...

which is more than twice as powerful as a .223. The steel buttplate didn't help, I'm sure.

The M1 Carbine, by contrast, fired a small round rather similar to a pistol cartridge (think of it as a .357 scaled down to .30 caliber, with an unrimmed case). It was designed as an easier-to-shoot alternative to the .45 caliber pistol, for issue to rear-echelon types as a personal defensive weapon, but it ended up seeing a lot of front-line combat, though.

[slackmaster]

23. Yet when the same round was used by the DC-area "snipers",

The very same media pissed themselves again and again about how powerful it is, how it can penetrate from one end of a house to another then go on to terrorize an entire neighborhood.

:eyes:

In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

7.62 x 39 Soviet packs marginally more stopping power, and is a little better at longer ranges because the heavier bullet at a lower initial velocity handles wind resistance a little better. Only a little.

I have a photo of a Marine atop a tank, carrying an old Model 98k Mauser bolt-action rifle in Iraq, probably captured from enemy combatants. If you want stopping power at 400 yards, that's the way to go.

[Paladin]

44. Why Don't You Tell All The Nice People......

.....why you felt it necessary to put quotes around the word "snipers" in referring to the D.C. shootings?

[Pavulon]

46. Snipers

Make head shots, target high value targets, and are trained for what they do. These guys were not snipers by definition. Again these shootings did not involved the range or skill associated with a military sniper.

Sniper is a dictionary word associated with someone trained in field craft, sharpshooter is a more appropriate term. Gut shooting a kid is not exactly a sniper skill level with a rifle at under 80m.

The press duns any one shooting a person(s) with a rifle a sniper.

Fuck wit murders is a better term.

[Paladin]

72. Earth To Gun Activists

Out here in the Real World, an individual who takes a place of concealment with a scope-sighted, center-fire rifle and then shoots persons at a distance is considered to be a sniper. No quotes required. If you want to adhere to a different definition which you found in the Sniper Worshippers' Handbook or something similar, go right ahead. Just don't expect everybody to agree with you.

You're trying to do to "sniper" what your movement has been trying to do with "assault weapon" for some time now: attempting to control the definition , make it narrow, technical and esoteric, to further your gun-happy political agenda. You're not fooling anybody here in the Real World....

[benEzra]

83. "Scope-sighted" and "at a distance" would exclude those clowns...

the carbine in question was fitted with an open, unmagnified holographic/collimator type sight (an Eotech), NOT a scope of any description.

35 yards isn't "at a distance" for a rifle, it's point-blank range.

Did you read your own definition?

[Paladin]

88. "An Unmagnified Holgraphic/Collimator Type Sight"

Esoterica at its finest. Thanks for proving my point.

[benEzra]

109. That's "holographic" :)

...a short-range open sight, if you don't grok optics. Not a telescope.

Esoterica at its finest.

No, this is esoterica:

http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1209/epl/i2001-00413-7

Hey, I'm a physics geek...

[luvmyAR]

112. assault weapon

pop quiz....
who can tell me the name of the person to coin the phrase..."ASSAULT WEAPON"..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.That would be ol' Adolf Hitler..so..if you feel comfy following ol Adolf be my guest, but the AR-15 is and was intended from the beginning as a Sporting Rifle.

[Retired AF Dem]

123. At least all of us "gun activists"

have gold stars. :)

[benEzra]

53. Taking potshots at 40 yards with a rifle?

That's shotgun range. Sheesh, that's HANDGUN range.

The media called the kid shooting at cars with a 9mm pistol a "sniper" too, a few years ago. Doesn't make him one.

[slackmaster]

78. A sniper is a highly proficient, trained, specialized marksperson

A professional soldier or police officer. A person of honor.

Muhammand and Malvo were cold-blooded racist serial murderers.

[Retired AF Dem]

122. maybe because

They did'nt take any shots beyond 70 yards?

[Paladin]

124. Why Don't You Consult The Sniper Worshipers' Handbook.....

....and let us all know exactly what shooting distance is required to qualify as a sniper shot?

[Retired AF Dem]

125. Don't have to

I completed the Marine Corps sniper school in Jan-Feb 85 in relation to my job as an Air Force sniper for EST (Emergency Services Team) team leader for the sniper and re con elements of the EST teams at Chanute and Ramstien AFB.

[Igel]

29. On the other hand, more lethal

ammo would also raise the civilian death count.

A lot of the non-combatants currently just 'shot' would be 'dead'.

It also makes you wonder about the civilian death toll in firefights with insurgents: perhaps they have those special "Islamic" civilian-avoiding bullets that Hamas and al-Fatah have--after all, all civilians that are killed in that theatre die only by "Jewish" bullets.

[The Stranger]

36. That's because when you shoot live rounds at civilians, they often die.

And the Palestinian death toll completely dwarfs the Israeli death toll (since you injected that into this thread).

[Igel]

41. The point being not that civilians aren't shot;

but that given where the firefights occur, there are civilians.

Would you rather have a more or less lethal bullet hurtling towards you?

[Pavulon]

42. The 556 nato

is plenty lethal. Both the ak and m16 produce violent wounds. I would prefer nothing larger than a beer can hurtling at me.

[pokercat999]

61. I think if I was in Iraq I'd blow my own brains out with

anything at hand.

[Tanam]

84. Thats plain stupid

Close your eyes and pretend ? :silly:

[pokercat999]

99. gee forgot my little sarcasm icon.......dummy

:sarcasm:

[TX-RAT]

62. more lethal ammo would also raise the civilian death count?

Would have to disagree with that statement. What we use now is a full metal jacket bullet, which leaves mostly just a pass through wound unless it hits bone and causes secondary projectiles. The FMJ also has a tendency to ricochet off harder surfaces unless it's hitting close to a 90% angle. A frangible round would make more seance if civilians are the main concern. No pass through and less likely to ricochet, but also less likely to penetrate body armor, car body's, and walls. Kinda damned if you do and damned if ya don't. If you really want to lower civilian deaths, try hitting what your aiming at.

[slackmaster]

33. Whoa! "...better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy"???

False dilemma.

Squirrels ARE the enemy!

:nuke:

[yorgatron]

34. are they outsourcing AMMO production?

i wonder if there's a quality control issue.
BTW i hated my M-16.
i got to fire an AK-47 on one occasion,i was impressed.
simplicity and reliability can keep you alive.

[NYC]

60. I think they are.

I can't remember where I read it, but I think we were running out of bullets in Iraq, and China would be shipping more.

I'll look around. Please see what you can find. My best guess is that I read this within the last 6 months.

[benEzra]

37. The 5.56x45mm is among the least powerful of all rifle rounds...

and is less than half as powerful as a typical deer rifle. The cartridge was developed from the .222 Remington varmint-hunting cartridge, which was intended for shooting groundhog-sized animals. In a nutshell, it fires TINY bullets at deer-rifle velocities. The AK-47 fires heavier .30 caliber bullets, but at a much lower velocity, so the energy levels are rather similar.


M16 (5.56x45mm/.223 Remington)..........1,275 ft-lb
AK-47 (7.62x39mm).......................1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer rifle.......................2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)...4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)....7,000 ft-lb


Obviously, if the only question were terminal effects, then you'd issue every soldier a .375 H&H. However, there are always tradeoffs between energy/momentum and usability.

Heavier bullets (and therefore more kinetic energy and momentum) result in significantly more recoil, meaning the gun is more difficult to control, particularly when the gun in question is a military automatic weapon. More powerful guns are bulkier and weigh more. Their ammunition and magazines are also bulkier and weigh more, meaning that a soldier with the more powerful rifle will be carrying less ammunition for any given weight, and will have to be resupplied more often.

There seems to be a growing consensus that the 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington is ideal for law enforcement and civilian defensive use, but is underpowered for use as an all-around military cartridge, particularly in belt-fed weapons. One proposed alternative is the 6.8mm SPC, which gives ballistics closer to .270 Winchester. However, there is a lot of institutional inertia favoring the 5.56x45--new equipment costs money--so I wouldn't be expecting a caliber change anytime soon.

[Paladin]

45. Why Don't You Convey This Information......

...to the families and survivors of the D.C. sniping incident? I'm sure that it would give them no end of comfort to know that they and their loved ones were devastated by such an underpowered round.....

[Rex]

49. It's not underpowered, the bullet is meant to rip right through a person

at high speeds (which obviously it does). The article stated that an Iraq man took 4 to the chest and it took an M9 to take him down, well big fucking deal. Anyone in the news ever heard of PCP or other drugs to enhance endurance? Maybe the guys adrenaline kicked in after the 3 or 4 shot. Either way, it is bad policy to change the US Armies/Marines main weapon in the middle of a war! If they are using the AK-47 then chances are some like it better then the M-16. Same as Vietnam and the Chinese SKS; maybe a shittier version, but you can still drop it in mud, pick it up and fire the dam thing.

[benEzra]

52. At point-blank range,

even a varmint cartridge can be lethal. Most of those clown's shots were between 35 and 65 yards, and IIRC the farthest was less than 90 yards.

The 5.56x45/.223 IS the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges, as you are well aware. But it is a rifle round, not a Nerf dart.

If the murderers had used a .30-06 deer rifle, some of those who survived would have likely died. That may not be a comfort to the families of those who were killed, but it sure as heck must be a comfort to the families of those who were shot and LIVED.

[Paladin]

74. Let's Do The Numbers, Shall We?

So, as far as you're concerned, there are 3 seriously wounded people who can rejoice that the D.C. Snipers used a pissy little round like the .223. On the other hand, ther are 10 families who had to bury relatives as a result of wounds inflicted by that same .223 round.

May God keep oblivious to the kind of impression you make, outside the Gun Dungeon......

[benEzra]

82. OK, name five common centerfire rifle cartridges LESS powerful than .223

...sound of crickets chirping...

The only ones I can think of (.17 Remington, .22 Hornet, .218 Bee, any others?) are so rare that I've never seen one in person. .30 Carbine might qualify, except it's physically more similar to a pistol round than to a rifle round. 5.45x39mm is the only less-powerful round I can think of that's even close to common.

If you haven't noticed, this thread is about the perceived inadequacy of the dimunitive .223/5.56x45mm as a military round. The fact that .223/5.56 is arguably the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle rounds is germane to that discussion.

Perhaps you could show me a centerfire rifle caliber that would NOT be dangerous to be shot with at point-blank range? Because I surely can't think of one that would fit that criteria.

[kineneb]

50. Isn't there also a reliability issue

between the M-16 and AK-47? I am not a military person and my weapons use has been limited to hunting and target guns, so thus I ask. If I remember correctly, one of the problems of the guns used in Vietnam was their reliability and construction (the joke about "made by Mattel" comes to mind). I gather that the AK-47 is less prone to jamming and will fire under almost any circumstances, even after severe abuse. Wouldn't the environment of Iraq have an influence on the M-16s abilities?

Also, wasn't the military having ammo supply problems? Is the quality of the bullets declining?

My parents had an AK-47 for house defense during the Iranian Revolution. Fortunately, they never had to use it.

[Rex]

51. In Vietnam, the original M-16 would overheat and prone to jamming.

The newer version and also the M-4 are designed to take a lot of heat and still fire reliably. The M-4 (IMO) is a piece of plastic crap. AK-47 and Chinese SKS assault rifles can stand even more environmental abuse then the M-16/4. My concern would be the sound, if everyone is using AK-47s it might be hard to tell (third party) who is the bad guy without visual conformation. Not a good scenario.

[Retired AF Dem]

126. During the Vietnam era

the rifle was very reliable. The problem was the rifle was designed to use IMR powder and the Army insisted that ball powder be used. IMR powder burns hotter and leaves less residue than ball powder.

[benEzra]

54. The M16 and its civilian cousins

use a short-stroke, direct-impingement gas system, meaning that high-pressure gas is tapped from the barrel at the front of the handguard as the bullet passes by, and is channeled through a tube back into the rifle's receiver, where it blows the bolt carrier backward to cycle the action. The low reciprocating mass makes the rifle potentially VERY accurate, which is one reason why AR-15's are the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States. The downside is that this system blows powder residue directly into the action with every shot. That's fine if the rifle is cleaned regularly, but is a problem if it isn't cleaned much or if it's used with ammo that produces lots of residue (which was the problem in Vietnam). It's also a pain in the butt to clean, thanks to the intricate bolt lugs. And, due to the close tolerances, the design doesn't tolerate sand well, which is probably the biggest problem with the M16/M4 in Iraq--fine sand in the action was reportedly why the rifles of Jessica Lynch's group malfunctioned and left them defenseless.

Instead of direct impingement, the AK uses a long-stroke gas piston attached directly to a HEAVY bolt carrier. Dirty combustion gases stay in the gas cylinder instead of dumping crud in the action; the bolt carrier has a LOT more kinetic energy, allowing it to cycle in spite of gunk and dirt; and the roomy receiver leaves plenty of room for crud to get out of the way. The downside is that the large reciprocating mass reduces accuracy potential (plenty of rotational moment, good bit of barrel bending torque at bolt carrier liftoff, etc.); as a result, 2 arcminutes is very good accuracy for an AK, whereas half-arcminute AR-15's aren't all that rare.

[kineneb]

56. so...

sounds like the design of the M16/4 is geared for the "ideal" situation instead of down-and-grubby use. Rather like the antique Luger that we owned (WWI markings). Great weapon, but it got very unhappy when it got dirty. Methinks the troops do not have a lot of time to field strip their weapons and keep them shiny clean. Iraq is known for its sand storms. Hmmm. I see a problem here. Thank you all for the info.

(Oh- and Iran has nasty sand storms, too, for the record.)

[Posteritatis]

75. IIRC, a lot of US weapons were meant for combat in Europe. (confirm?) (nt)

[benEzra]

86. Most likely.

The rifle that would become the M16 was designed in the late 1950's and was first issued in the early '60's. I'm not sure of the exact year, but its non-automatic civilian cousin (the Colt AR-15) hit the U.S. market in 1961.

Tolerance of fine Middle Eastern sand probably wasn't a primary design criterion, since the big worry in the '50's was probably a Soviet invasion of Europe.

[Posteritatis]

76. What's arcminute refer to, anyway?

I've encountered the term a few times in convos like this, but don't get what it means.

[BrotherBuzz]

77. Arc minute

A minute of arc, arcminute, or MOA is a unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth (1/60) of one degree - that's just about one inch at 100 yards, so two arcminutes translates to a shooting pattern about the size of a silver dollar at a hundred yards.

[Posteritatis]

81. I am become en-clued - thanks! (n/t)

[ConcernedCanuk]

70. Stop shooting civilians! - That'd save a lot of bullets, no?

.
.
.

OR

Just go back to the USA and let Iraq and it's neighbours sort it out . .

Seems like Iraq was pretty stable before the USA stuck it's nose in . .

[formercia]

80. Ma Deuce is the best weapon for recon by fire.

Unless you have something bigger....

It gets their attention.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrotherBuzz]

89. An army SEAL?

They got to be tough, especially if they go into a navy bar and order a 'Budweiser'.:rofl:

Oh the Mattel connection is 100% urban myth. Even if people try to tell you the toy outft just made the plastic stocks and foregrip it's pure bunk.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrotherBuzz]

92. OK, Mattel made all the M16's issued to Army SEAL's

:rofl:

[jtb33]

90. ROFLMAO!

The US military needs to go to the AK47 - it can fire any round, this is part of its success as a guerrilla weapon.

LOL! ANY round, huh? I think I will have to try some 30-06 or 300WM in my 7.62x39 AK. Or better yet, you try it for me. I'll stand far, far away.

I am not an expert

Apparently not.

[enfield collector]

93. you can get a lot of good intel at gun shows, a force recon marine

told me in a pinch you can fire 5.45x39 ammo in a M16, but you lose a little accuracy.

[SC-Texas]

96. Dear Doctor . . . . . .You are mistaken

Dear Doctor,

Your statements above are rife with inaccuracies.

1. Mattel NEVER made the M-16. Mattel NEVER made any part for the M-16.
2. Colt made the rifle for the first 8 - 10 years. It took the military that long to purchase the TDS (technical data set).
3. The biggest problem with the weapons system is that it was sold as a fully developed weapon system to replace the overly heavy and unwieldy M-14 & the army brass changed the powder formulation without fully testing the changed formulation in the weapon system.
4. The M-16 was actually MUCH better than the M14 as an infantry weapon: it is lighter, shorter, more accurate and carries more ammunition.
5. The 5.56mm FMJ produced more devastating wounds than the 7.62mm
5. The new 62grn rounds fragment just like the 55grn rounds.
6. The 5.56mm bullet does not tumble through the air. If it did, it wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 yards.
7. The AK-47 cannot fire "any round". It only fires a relatively low velocity 7.62mm bullet and has the energy of a 30/30.
8. AK-47s jam. I have seen them jam.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brother Buzz]

108. Did I meet you, your uncle and Oscar at a gun show a few years ago?

[-..__...]

110. Eh? WTF?

Next thing we know is that you'll be claiming a Ruger 10/22 or S&W .38 is the perfect home defense weapon.

[Hammit]

113. The 10/22

Could actually be a very good home defense weapon. It would not over-penetrate, and you could carry much ammo in your tactical wheelbarrow.

[TrogL]

94. 7.62 mm is NATO standard

Why won't the US get with the program?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[-..__...]

111. That's only for crew served machine guns or light machine guns.

Not saying that there aren't some operator, high-speed-low-drag types out there still utilizing the 7.62mm, but the 7.62mm is not your fathers M-14 or FAL anymore.

[Tanam]

101. I agree

do it for the children.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rose Siding]

104. You agree with doing what for the children?

What do you mean?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiOligarchist]

116. Can't The Military-Industrial Complex Pick up the Slack?

It is unjust that we spend all of these billions of dollars supposedly developing technology to protect our troops and we stick them with a 40+ year old gun. I don't care if it worked in Vietnam or any place else. Why stop innovating if it helps the people in harm's way? If the hawks love the troops as much as they say couldn't they just develop a new gun or bullet with all of that R&D capacity? It's not like it took them 40 years to armor the Humvees. You would think they could put that out in a flash.

There are even a lot of new guns and bullets that have been made according to some websites I have been digging up. Remember that funky looking thing on Stargate? That is a FN PS-90 and it fires the 5.7x28 round - which means it is 5.7mm long (bigger than the 5.56mm) and fragments into 28 submunitions - and it has 50 bullets in a clip which is almost twice what the M-16 has in it's clip. It supposedly has never failed to take anyone down and the Peruvian military already uses it (are they in the Colation of the Willing?). If its good enough for some crappy Peruvian military (don't they have mountains? Who would invade over those?) can't it be good enough for our kids?

[Tanam]

118. You read to much

and know not of what you speak. M-16 doesnt use a clip." and fragments into 28 submunitions " You watch to much stargate. Ever fired a firearm ?

[AntiOligarchist]

119. Yes,

I have fired a firearm. You seem to be questioning the information I have; it is only as accurate as my sources. I don't have any personal experience with those kinds of guns since they are illegal and I have never been in the army. The only kind of guns that I know anything about personally are the two that my uncle showed me how to shoot when I was a kid. I think the rifle was a .22 and the pistol was a .38 - I don't remember much because I was little and it was a while ago - I think it was just before my uncle died in '87. Anyway, please don't get so snippy, I'm here for the same reasons you are. I do want to say that although our troops should be getting good gun tech and all that, regular civilians shouldn't be able to get there hands on that kind of firepower. I think that the kind of guns my uncle had should be enough for anyone.

[kozmo]

117. If the 5.56 is such an effective combat weapon round...

then explain to me why any joe schmo can pick up an ar-15/m-4/m-16 type rifle at their local gun store. It just seems to me that if the 5.56/.223 caliber of weapons family was such a deadly weapon, it would be crazy to let civilians be able to own them? They seem ideal for squirrels and other small animals, but not for human combat. It's no wonder we lost in Vietnam.

[Endangered Specie]

120. I think a major part of the problem is relying on one specific round

to do it all.

A bullet that works well in urban combat is gonna suck out in the open desert for example.

Ideally (supply issues aside) I think at least 3 calibers/systems should be used:
a dedicated short range smg (say in 9mm or 45acp)
an all around 'assault weapon' (firing some intermediate rifle round, say 7.62x39 or *gasp* 5.56x45)
a long range rifle (firing full power rifle rounds like 7.62x51)

oh, and above all these systems need to be reliable, war is not a lab, or a range. I think Id rather have an inaccurate reliable one than one with all the bells and whistles thatll jam if it touches a mound of sand

[SC-Texas]

121. Problems w/ the round

They have been testing a new cartridge that returns to the German theory of hte intermediate rifle round- the 6.8mm SPC. 115 bullet that works well out of a 9" bbl SMG and a 20" long range rifle.

The 5.56mm system has been modified for the specific mission by changing the bullett weight- I disagree with BenEzra in his posts above- he is focusing on power to the exclusion of all else.

The question comes down to money- how much are we, as a society, willing to pay to field the new weapon system.

Remember, $$ spent on military takes $$ from other social programs.


The military is also testing a rifle built by FN that can be converted, easily at the unit level, between the 5.56, the 6.8mm SPC, the 7.,62x39mm and the 7.62 NATO calibers.

[maddezmom]

127. locking

No longer Latest Breaking News and has gone off-topic more than a few times.