US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

[Omaha Steve]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080527/D90TL4K00.html

By RICHARD LARDNER

(AP) ADVANCE FOR MAY 27; graphic compares two bullets used by the U.S. military; 2c x 2 3/4 inches; 96.3...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.

As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.


ADVANCE FOR MAY 27; graphic compares two bullets used by the U.S. military; 2c x 2 3/4 inches; 96.3 mm x 69.9 mm



"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."

Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.

The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.

FULL story at link.

[Edweird]

1. Most states outlaw 5.56 rounds for deer hunting as it is too small to kill humanely.

If you can't kill Bambi with it, why the hell would anyone think it is suitable for use against someone that is trying their best to kill you before you kill them? Deer don't shoot back. Not to mention the fact that the rounds deflect off branches, drywall, you name it.
The 7.62 has always been a superior round.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. 762x54 Good enough for the Russians since the 1800's

Still making my shoulder sore in 2007.

[FarCenter]

5. The .30 caliber Springfield Armory Model 1906 works well

[michreject]

20. Actually it would be the 7.62 X 51

Is the round being compared in the OP.

[krispos42]

13. Except when you're trying to shoot in full-auto

Then you're all over the place.

And all bullets deflect off of branches and such. Even heavy stuff like the .45-70 gets deflected by twigs and branches. There was an article about it in a hunting magazine a few years ago. Did a shooting test and everything.

[hokies4ever]

16. You need to learn more about guns and war

and you'll realize that the 5.56 round is better because it's for guns meant for urban fighting, particularly because of shorter barrels and auto-fire. Unlike hunters, the military nowadays is NOT based upon ammo conservation. Most older military veterans will mention this as a big change in shooting philosophy in the military, from the smaller guns to the larger guns.

[Edweird]

26. Yeah, 'cause when they introduced it in Vietnam, there was all that Urban warfare...

:eyes:
"spray and pray" will get you killed by a well trained adversary.
A round that can't maintain its trajectory through drywall or a door or wall (such as the 5.56)is useless in urban combat. The 7.62 Nato (.308) will reach out and touch much more people. And that means you get to go home. Alive.

But what the hell do I know?
You're the expert. Right?

[0rganism]

19. in conventional wars, wounding an enemy used to be a desirable outcome

IIRC, this was one of the reasons small-caliber FMJ rounds were popularized with the military in the first place. The same jacketing that lets them pass through steel also sends them straight through the body, causing less overall damage than, say, an expanding hollow-point round.

The theory went something like this: if a soldier is clearly shot dead, chances are high that his squad will continue the fight more or less uninterrupted, perhaps with increased zeal. On the other hand, if one can disable a soldier with an apparently (or actually) serious wound, it strains his logistical infrastructure and endangers his mission. Not only can he no longer assist in battle, he becomes a liability as his comrades become distracted as well, trying to patch him up and evacuate him to a hospital for further care. Once hospitalized, he consumes the time and energy of doctors as well as other precious medical resources to preserve his life. Furthermore, he continues to consume the army's food, water, and shelter, while not being able to fight for his cause. A wounded soldier can cost the enemy far more than a fatality, under such circumstances.

Of course, this makes far more sense in an open conventional war where soldiers can expect and receive decent care from their respective armies. Against terrorists and guerrillas, the idea is invalidated at its premise.

[Edweird]

27. Hollow points are banned by the Geneva Convention. Only FMJ is allowed.

[hardtravelin]

29. Actually, it is the Hague Convention of 1907

Which agrees to forbid:

.."To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering"

Deliberately expanding ammunition is prohibited. Many nations field ammunition that has a hollow-point, but is not designed to expand. There are many types of military ammunition that have match-grade bullets.

In 1990, the US started to use "match" bullets in military ammunition. The JAG (with the Dept. of State, Army, Navy, and Air Force counsels), responding to a request from Special Operations Command, published this guidance:

"The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. … Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat."

Geeky, but I thought it was relevant.

[Edweird]

30. Hey, when you're right, you're right. I stand corrected.

[TheMightyFavog]

3. They've been having this same argument since 5.56 was introduced.

They were having the sam e arguments during 'nam fer chrissake!

[aikoaiko]

4. Stoner wanted the AR in 7.62 originally, IIRC.

6.8 might be the compromise of the future.

[east texas lib]

6. This arguement has been going on in the military ever since the 5.56mm was adopted...

Basicaly it comes down to this. There is the one shot,one kill tactical school of thought (7.62mm).
And there is the spray and pray tactical school of thought (5.56mm). There is a reason snipers use
7.62mm rounds. Because they work! By the way, the 7.62mm is known in the U.S. as the .308 Winchester,
a common deer hunting caliber. The 5.56mm is known as the .223 Remington, a common varmit caliber.
It's comforting to realize that the U.S. Army issues the vast majority of it's troops a weapon that
excels at shooting small critters such as rabbits and skunks, isn't it? Now, if only they were the
the actual enemy our troops were facing, the 5.56mm might make sense.

[doc03]

7. The US military also replaced the 45 Cal auto

with the 9MM a far less effective weapon.

[Wilber_Stool]

8. It takes 250,000 rounds

to kill one Iraqi.

[1]

10. heh. so because you are obviously fishing and looking for someone to bite...

on this "one quarter million rounds" required to kill one iraqi...

i'll do it.

heh. your turn...

[michreject]

21. Sounds about right

That's still lower that the round count/kill in VN.

[MilesColtrane]

9. If Cheney owned a Vienna Sausage factory you can bet those would be the standard government issue.

It seems to be more about who gets the supply contract rather than what is effective for the troops survival.

God Bless America.

[krispos42]

11. Well, what do you expect when you lose over 5 inches of barrel length?

That's got to be over a hundred feet per seond lost in muzzle velocity.

The design of the M855 include a cannulure in the bullet so the case can be crimped very tight. That cannulure also is a stress-concentration point. When fired from the full-length M-16, the bullet has enough energy so that when it hits a person, the bullet separates explosively, dumping all of it's energy and momentum in the bad guy. The resulting shock knocks them on their ass and stuns them so that by the time they can shake it off, they're dead from blood loss.

Past about a hundred yards or so, the bullet is moving slow enough so that it stays together, penetrating the target instead of fragmenting in it.

But knock a hundred or more feet per second off the muzzle velocity, that explosive fragmentation effect's range goes down a fair amount. That means you wind up having bad guys a lot closer that are only wounded, not suffering from hydrostatic shock from a well-fragmented 5.56mm cartridge.




For the short term, we need to give our troops fighting in Iraq come kind of expanding ammunition, the same kind we use for deer hunting. Something like Federal ammo's Trophy Bonded Bear Claw.


For the long term, we should make a new cartridge. A .257-caliber cartridge of the same overall length of the 5.56mm NATO, that shoots a 100-grain bullet at about 2,800 feet per second. Assuming a reasonably slick bullet design, it would be within an inch or so of the current 5.56mm round ballisticaly everywhere up to 500 yards. It would also have significantly more power, about a third more at the muzzle and almost twice as much at 500 yards.



We should also dump the Beretta pistol and get something like the Springfield Armory XD or Smith & Wesson M&P pistol in either .40 S&W or .45 GAP.

[michreject]

23. No one would notice

A person being shot is not going to notice the reduced velocity.

[hardtravelin]

28. Alternate ammunition would help.

One of the design requirements that the 62 gr. bullet had to meet was that it had to penetrate a helmet at 600 Meters. As a result of the bullet design, and the steel penetrator in the tip of the bullet, it tends to over-penetrate.

Recently, Mk. 262 ammunition has been fielded. Currently, only SOF units have free access to it.It has a 77 gr. match-grade bullet in it. As a result, terminal ballistics are much improved. If this new ammunition was fielded to all the troops it would have n effect immediately. The problem is that it is roughly 3 times the cost of M855.

There are better bullets out there that would increase the lethality of the M4 (in its current configuration) much more efficiently than a caliber change. That would be a logistic nightmare.

If a caliber change is to be done, the 6.8 SPC (Remington) is the ticket. I think the ballistics are that it shoots a 115 gr. bullet at around 2600 fps out of a 16" barrel (M4). The terminal ballistics are a bit better than the 7.62x39.

M4/M16's can be refitted while still retaining a platform that all the Services are familiar with.

But....changing weapon systems in the middle of a war? Expensive and dangerous.

[Hobarticus]

12. Wasn't standardization across NATO a factor?

I thought no one but the US liked the 7.62 round.

[krispos42]

14. They are both NATO standard

The 7.62 NATO was developed after World War Two. It's a .30-caliber round like the .30-06 we used from 1906 until about 1955 or so. A lot of contries adapted it to replace their mid-caliber rifle cartridges like the .303 British, 6.5mm Mauser, 7mm Mauser, 8mm Mauser, etc.

It's a little less powerful than the .30-06 but more powerful than the other rounds. And it made all NATO members retool their armies equally.

The 5.56mm NATO was adopted a few years later, and is also widely used.


In fact, US infantry squads usually have one guy with a 5.56mm belt-fed machine gun, one or two guys with 7.62mm rifles, and the balance (about ten or so) with 5.56mm rifles. The guys with the 7.62mm rifles are called the "designated marksmen" and usually take on the longer-range targets.

[Hobarticus]

15. I thought this was a hot topic at one point....

A couple other member nations took umbrage to the newer smaller round, but I can't recall specifics.

You seem to know your stuff. What's your take on this?

[krispos42]

18. Stop issuing the short-barreled M4 rifles!

The short barrel loses too much velocity. They went to a heavier, slower bullet years ago, which offers better down-range performance but reduces the maximum range at which explosive defragmentation occurs.

The old 55-grain M193 round had a muzzle velocity of about 3240 ft/s, and the newer 62-grain M855 round does 3100 from a regular-length barrel.

The loss of over five inches of barrel lengh costs about 25 feet per second per inch lost, so your losing over a hundred and maybe as much as 150 ft/s as well. Now you're down to about 2950 ft/s.

Wikipedia says that below 2700 ft/s, the explosive fragmentation effect ceases to happen. Plugging the numbers into a ballistics program, a 62-grain bullet fired from an M4 carbine drops below 2700 ft/s within 75 yards. That same bullet fired from a regular-length M16 takes 125 yards to drop below that magic threshold.

Similarly, the 55-grain bullet from an M16 drops below that threshold at 150 yards, and from an M4 at about 100 yards.

So either stop issuing the M4 to everybody except those that really need it, or bring back the old M193 cartridge for the M4s! :-)

Understand that even if they don't fragment, the bullets tend to "tumble" upon entering flesh, making pretty bad wounds as they arc and spin through the body.

Other things we can do is use expanding bullets, like hollowpoints. They are illegal under the Hague conventions for military conflicts, but we're in occupation duty now against insurgents and the like, which is not against uniformed military, so I think we could get aways with it legally. These bullets are made to mushroom, dumping all their energy and momentum into the target and creating a larger wound channel. While civilian uses for the 5.56mm round (sold commercially as the .223 Remington) are largely target shooting and varmit control, there are bullets made tough enough for light, thin-skinned game such as deer. And I guess humans fall into that catagory as well.

I also wrote upthread about how a slightly larger bullet, a .257-caliber (about 6.6mm) 100-grain bullet at 2800 ft/s would be a good replacement as well. Light enough to be used in fully-automatic rifles, but heavier enough to pack a greater wallop than the 5.56mm. It would have a lot more energy and momentum than the 5.56mm, making better at all ranges, especially the close ones.

There are also a couple of dedicated close-range rounds developed for the M-16 platform like the .50 Beowulf. It's a massive, .50-caliber cartridge that shoots a bullet weighing well over 300 grains. It follows the "slow and heavy" school of thought. It doesn't have the speed or aerodynamics for long-range stuff, but below 175 yards it's pretty much point-and-shoot. Past that, you have to start dialing serious compensation for range becaues the bullet is about as aerodynamic as a brick. But for storming into a house? Yeah, you could do a lot worse than the .50 Beowulf.

The 6.5 Grendal is roughly equal to my .257-caliber concept, except that because it is designed for a very broad range of bullet weights it's case is shorter and fatter than it needs to be, which would affect things like magazine capacity. A cartridge designed for a specific bullet weight could have a longer, slimmer case, hopefully one more compatable with existing M16 magazines. :shrug:



Or, you know, we could just bring the troops home. That would solve the problem of ammunion effectiveness, wouldn't it? :-)

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

25. While the .50 is going to stop damn near anything, and does have some other advantages,

I wouldn't want to be carrying 200+ rounds.

[1]

31. no, there is a reason they issue short-barreled weapons...

for the urban warfare that is what much of iraq has become.

its not about bullet drop at 1000 yards. its about maneuvering a weapon in small, confined spaces.

inside rooms, hallways, courtyards...





or, you know, we could just bring the troops home. that would solve the problem of ammunition effectiveness, wouldn't it? :-)

[hardtravelin]

33. What he said!!!

[krispos42]

34. Yeah, that's the problem

When those same guys go on a regular patrol with the M4, now they're engaging targets a couple of blocks away, on top of buildings, across parks, etc.

During a raid, give the entry guys M4s and the perimeter security team M16s and M14s.

Or get our guys out of Iraq and let the Iraqis do this stuff instead.

[1]

35. "Or get our guys out of Iraq ..."

true that.

you keep coming up with the greatest weaponology advice ever...

[1]

17. heh...

my favorite pistol is my glock 21, a .45. it fits my hand well and i can drive tacks with it all day long.

if you put a .45 acp against a 9mm in controlled tests against gelatin blocks and what not, like the you did with the pretty pictures and charts and graphs and all, the 45 is more "effective".

the same can be said of the 7.62 vs the 5.56. charts and graphs and gelatin and all...

the american military, who have had the .45 for almost 100 years and the 7.62 (30-06) since wwii, take other considerations in mind.


there was a reason the .45 was replaced. some were political (nato standards) and some were practical (the modern solder does better with a 9mm, can't handle a .45.)

there was a reason the 7.62 was replaced. some were political (nato standards) and some were practical (the modern solder does better with a 5.56, can't handle a 7.62. which is almost impossible to control under full auto like a m14 or an ak-47. and the soldiers can carry twice as much ammo for the same weight.)

hell the fucking russians even went with a 5.45 round in the '70s with the ak-74 which is what their troops sport today.




if you can't hit the target with the round your troops are firing, then your charts and graphs and gelatin blocks (your "efficiency") don't mean shit.

if you think a 5.56 can't kill a deer or is a varmint round, you are an idiot. shoot a deer in the head with a 5.56 and the round will exit his asshole after penetrating every vital organ in his body. (they tumble. that's their purpose. you can't shoot "hollow points". you think they are designed to be nice?)

there is a reason the 5.56 has been our main military round for the last 40+ years. don't you think if they could they wouldn't devise another weapon and replace it (for those billion dollar contracts) if they could?

i love folks who have never actually fired a weapon that bring their charts and graphs and whatnot.

you are... something...

[michreject]

22. If anyone ever humped the ammo

They would go for the lighter round. You can carry more ammo. A good thing in a fire fight.

[Blue_Tires]

24. yeah...i thought weight was the primary issue?

[Jack_DeLeon]

32. I prefer an AK in 7.62x39...

IMO its a better weapon at medium ranges.

I own both and is amazing to me how much more work is needed to get ARs reliable compared to AKs. The AK shoots a more powerful round at closer ranges, but if you were shooting farther ranges the AR has the advantage in accuracy and range.