# 5.56mm in bandoliers



## x westie (24 Mar 2006)

Hi guys,             just curious if the troops in Afghanistan are supplied with 5.56mm. ammo in bandoleers for the C7 & C8, i recall in the late 60's and early 70's getting 7.62mm.in bandoleers for the Canadian C1 & C2 we had the option of "topping up" our mags with stripper clips or a mag loader was issued and we could strip rds into the C1 & C2 mags from the bandoleers . I also noticed in various photo's from the Vietnam War, U.S. troops were issued 5.56mm in bandoleers as well as carrying mags in their webbing ammo pouches. I know I'm' talking along time back, but please don't "flame "me,after hearing about our troops in "A Stan" not having enough pouches for 5.56mm , i got to wondering and would like to hear your input. A interesting note, our Canadian C1 & C2 rifle were  the only FN rifle with a stripper clip guide so you could top up  your mag, the Brit and Aussie rifle didn't have this option.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Mar 2006)

5.56mm Ball does come in 100 round bandoleers and is usually what is deployed overseas, but I cant say exactly what the troops are carrying.  The rounds packed in cartons is called training pack.  With bandoleers you get 1 charger for every 100 rounds, in training pack you get one bandoleer per can (910 rounds).  The actual round is identical between bandoleer and training pack.

D


----------



## MG34 (31 Mar 2006)

I would hazard a guess and say that for the most part the bandoleers are not used. The rounds are most likely carried already loaded into magazines which are issued,bought,borrowed,or stolen. The bandoleer concept was never an ideal solution since the invention of the detachable magazine.


----------



## Bartok5 (31 Mar 2006)

IIRC, from the adoption of the C7 rifle in 1986 until the end of the "Bosnia days" in the late 1990's, the basic load for a C7 rifleman was published as 250 rounds.  150 rds were to be carried in 5 x 30-rd magazines, with the balance available for "top up" in the form of a 100-rd bandolier.  That doctrine was fundamentally flawed from the outset and has long since been superseded by reality on deployed operations where the basic rifleman's load is 300 rounds carried *ready to use* in 10 x 30-rd mags.  Why would one willingly carry two-fifths of his basic load in a cumbersome, floppy bandolier where those rounds are not immediately employable when needed?  Is the preferred option to start charging mags in the middle of a firefight?  I suppose if you have to, but that is *NOT* the preferred option.

The C7 "150 rds in mags, 100 rds in a bandolier" doctrine was obsolescent from the moment it was adopted in the late 1980s.  It was nothing more than Cold War FN C1A1 doctrine unthinkingly carried over to the new service rifle.  This "doctrine hold-over" was every bit as flawed as the direct application of the old FN C2A1 LAR Personal Weapons Test to the (then) new C9 LMG.  The latter also proved to be an utter farce because the two weapons have completely different firing characteristics and inherent accuracy capabilities.  The "renamed" FN C2 PWT was virtually impossible to achieve with the C9, yet this idiocy continued unabated for the better part of 15 years.  And so it remains with the "Bosnia-era" thinking of the CTS crew responsible for a shiny new Tac Vest that only holds 5 loaded C7 mags....   :

Yes, operationally packaged 5.56mm C77 ball ammo still comes in 100-rd bandoliers - 3 pouches of 30 rounds on stripper clips, and one pouch of 10 rounds on a stripper clip mounted in a magazine charger.  It makes emminent sense if one is faced with an emergency resupply situation where the basic load of 300 rounds *in magazines* has been partially or fully expended in a prolonged engagement.  Think a 5-hour long enemy attack against a defended outpost, as occurred earlier this week.  Any packaging that will facilitate the reloading process is a "good thing".  But it is no replacement for having the operationally validated 300 rd (minimum) rifleman's basic load ready to employ in pre-loaded magazines.  

BTW, that basic load validation for combat operations dates back to the 1960s U.S. experience in Vietnam.  Our doctrine folks and the CTS "designers" are more than a little behind the times.  Hence the need for our  operational field force to simply go with what they know (first-hand, real-time) to be appropriate for their current situation.


----------



## LordOsborne (1 Apr 2006)

Mark C, thanks for that post. I've read the numerous threads on the TV issues and your post was enlightening. On BMQ, i was told that a bandolier was supposed to be present, but we had to pretend with notional ones instead. It was something to laugh about later on in the shacks as we were told to "Train as we fight".. when soldiers in theatre were and are using something completely different.

Just a question though: if the bandolier idea was a descendant from FN-C1 doctrine, how was that supposed to work with the original thermold C7 magazines? I have heard that the thermold mags were intended to be cheap and disposable, but if that's the case, then why bother with a bandolier? or is my info flawed?  

Thanks again


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2006)

When we were issued the plastic mags in the fall of 87, we were told they were definately NOT disposable.  I believe the mags you speak of were from a concept of pre-loaded disposable mags, and we never bought that concept.


----------



## LordOsborne (1 Apr 2006)

Thanks for the clarification, TCBF.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Apr 2006)

> When we were issued the plastic mags in the fall of 87, we were told they were definately NOT disposable.  I believe the mags you speak of were from a concept of pre-loaded disposable mags, and we never bought that concept.



Now, I know this is going to sound completely crazy, but is it possible that they WERE originally supposed to be disposable, and we just didn't use the kit the way it was supposed to be used, in order to, well,  save money?


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

I recall hearing that the plastic magazines were meant to be pre-loaded and disposable, but as Britney says, money was one issue. Other factors intruded, such as the springs weakening in prolonged storage when under compression and the gun lobby getting the government to declare a 30 round magazine as a "weapon". 

While I cannot personally attest to reasons one and two (they were rumors at my level), there is an element of common sense in each story. As for reason three, having to walk the trace in an attempt to recover dropped magazines become an overriding training objective for a while after the law passed, although thankfully, that seems to be a non issue these days. (Please don't tell me otherwise, I'll just throw up  : ).


----------



## MG34 (3 Apr 2006)

Magazine springs do not weaken if compressed,only if stretched. They are the same as any other coil spring. The plastic magazine concept was a poor decision regardless if the intent was to be disposable or not. At the time of issue they were condisered to be a more cost effectve design,that of course was proven false.


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 Apr 2006)

In support of a-majoor, when the first C7's were issued, we were informed that the magazines issued to us were based on the US disposable magazine design; however, the cost of replacing thousands of magazines was intimidating, so we were forced to sign for them and take care of them, despite the fact that they would break if used in cold temperatures.  At first we loved them because at least they didnt rust liek the old C1/C2 mags.  However, we soon found that the plastic mags were not much better due to being easily damaged.  Further, the mags broke if used as a 'C9 supplement', so we were forbidden to use the mags on the C9; this led to everyone buying metal mags whenever and wherever possible so that we could use the mags on C9s and not have to worry about broken mags during cold weather ops. 

Reference to MG-34, the mag springs do  weaken if compressed and left compressed; i.e. if fully loaded with a 30-rounds and left that way for a long time (about 2 weeks).  Thats why we are supposed to strip and clean our mags on a regular basis, so that this does not occur (but it does occur if you dont watch your people). The 9mm Browning mags were especially bad for this, while the C7 mags were only really bad in cold weather, when the spring did not have enough force to push the next round upwards after the previous round fired.


----------



## MG34 (18 Apr 2006)

Actually magazine springs DO NOT weaken if left compressed it's an urban myth.The only way to weaken a spring is to overstretch or over compress it. The main reason magazines do not work is because of deformation of the feed lips and excessive dirt in the magazine,that's it,keep your mags clean and oiled they can be stored loaded indefinately.
Read here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_163_27/ai_99130369


----------



## Blakey (18 Apr 2006)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Magazine springs do not weaken if compressed,only if stretched. They are the same as any other coil spring. The plastic magazine concept was a poor decision regardless if the intent was to be disposable or not. At the time of issue they were condisered to be a more cost effectve design,that of course was proven false.



I'm not a "spring" SME by any means, that said, I do know for a _fact_ (having used said "plastic" and metal Canadian issue magazines) that keeping 30 rounds of 5.56 mm ball ammunition loaded in a magazine will effect the *resiliency* (for lack of a better word) of that spring. How do I know this?, because I have seen magazines that have had ammunition in them for about a month, reloaded and the first 2 or 3 rounds just fall out, (spring compressed and looses its resiliency). Solution?---strip mag, stretch spring.


----------



## MG34 (18 Apr 2006)

Not to drag this spring debate on any further,I personally have stored fully loaded 30 round magazines for periods of up to 8 months without any loss of "spring power",when I got new ammo I fired off the ammo in the magazines without a stoppage through my C7,all 15 magazines worked just fine. The plastic mags are a different story as they did not work even when brand new, I can't say I actually used then except on parades ( bought my own USGI mags at the time)


----------



## Centurian1985 (18 Apr 2006)

Looks like we need more votes:

2 say *yes * mag springs lose 'springiness' (help! physics expertise anyone?)
1 says *no * mag springs dont lose their strength

Anyone else?


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Apr 2006)

I kept my C8 (28rnds) and 9mm mags loaded my entire tour (7+ months) with no adverse effects, still functioned 100% at the ranges...


----------



## teddy49 (18 Apr 2006)

No the springs do not get weaker if you keep them loaded.  If the top 3 rounds of ammunition fall out of your rifle mags, start looking for damage to the body.  Or check that the follower is aligned properly.  This was a common enough problem on AR magazines, the the followers have been redesigned twice in the 10 years.  The issue with Browning magazines, is the feed lips not the springs.  The constantly deform and require continued maintenance to keep them properly bent, so they hold the rounds in the right position for the slide to pick up.  My AK and Glock mags for my work weapons stay loaded until I empty them at the range, every month or so.  And I've never had a mag related stoppage with them.  If the spring is used inside it's design envelope.  That is, not stretched or over compressed, then it will have a very long life and can remain loaded almost indefinitely, provided the right environmental conditions.


----------



## Fusaki (18 Apr 2006)

IIRC there was another reputable member on this forum who suggested the ammo-oracle as a reliable source of info. Here's a little bit about storing loaded mags:

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#storemags

I've seen mags loaded for months at a time and work just fine. Personally, I consider keeping mags loaded to be a non-issue.


----------



## Blakey (18 Apr 2006)

Teddy (all),
That just might have been the case, as I had said I am defiantly not a magazine SME so, it very well might have been the cause. 
So then, it is unequivocally proven that magazines do not get weaker (or the term I prefer "loose their resiliency") when loaded for prolonged periods of time?


----------



## MG34 (18 Apr 2006)

YES for the love of GOD yes end this...For those who didn't get it :Mag springs do not weaken if left compressed..Final answer.


----------



## Blakey (18 Apr 2006)

MG34 said:
			
		

> YES for the love of GOD yes end this...For those who didn't get it :Mag springs do not weaken if left compressed..Final answer.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion---why so overbearing with the comment?, and for the record I use the term _ resiliency_ not weakened, there is a difference.


----------

