# U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate



## Enzo (8 Jun 2006)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060607.aspx



> The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away.  The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops.





> The study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls.





> The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment.



These are a few excerpts from the article posted to the website cited above. I'm unfamiliar with this site, therefore I am uncertain as to the validity of the contents. I was unable to find a second reference to corroborate these findings. Having said that, it would appear as though the 5.56mm M855 is going to carry on as the primary choice for the U.S. Army within the foreseeable future.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jun 2006)

> U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate


 paracowboy disagrees. They win, but I'm right.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2006)

101 metres is a long range shot?

I believe 7.62mm is still in the system as an alternative.


----------



## Kal (8 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> paracowboy disagrees. They win, but I'm right.



What would you prefer?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I believe 7.62mm is still in the system as an alternative.



6.8mm SPC would only require an upper receiver and magazine switch while using the current lower receivers.  Obviously, a new personal weapon would have to be bought if switching to 7.62mm, but I don't believe that is what you're implying.  What was your idea?



			
				Enzo said:
			
		

> Having said that, it would appear as though the 5.56mm M855 is going to carry on as the primary choice for the U.S. Army within the foreseeable future.



Unless a switch to Mk 262 is made.


----------



## KevinB (8 Jun 2006)

5.56mm is fine

Mk262 is better than C77/M855


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2006)

Kal - being a bit of a smartass I guess.

It just seems that people want to go reinventing wheels when the wheel already exists.  If the 5.56 isn't enough then I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to put the 7.62 back into service with AR-10s/FNs/M14s/G3s etc.


----------



## Kal (8 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Kal - being a bit of a smartass I guess.
> 
> It just seems that people want to go reinventing wheels when the wheel already exists.  If the 5.56 isn't enough then I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to put the 7.62 back into service with AR-10s/FNs/M14s/G3s etc.



Gotcha'  

There isn't an easy answer, the choices all have advantages and disadvantages over each other.  Perhaps the easiest answer to say is 'shot placement.'  However, this is also the answer which is the most difficult to attain.  It's easy enough to say make an upper torso/head shot, but it isn't so easy trying to make a running head shot into a car at 200 metres.   With that said, I'll keep training and striving for a CAG/JTF2/KevinB/DEVGRU level of shooting.  

I decided to scratch one of the examples.  There's enough people stroking this individual's ego.... ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 Jun 2006)

June 7, 2006: The U.S. Army completed a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints from troops that this ammunition was inadequate in combat. Troops reported many instances where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating.  
This information in this study is not new, our troops knew that the C7 had reduced stopping power back in 1986 when the C7 was first introduced, and the men who had been involved in Cyprus with the Turks voiced the same concerns!  One of the explanations, outside of following NATO standards, was that since we were involved in peacekeeping operations, we did not require ammunition that caused massive flesh trauma.    

The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away.  
Are they recommending shooting at the head or heart rather than for center of mass?  This also tends to disregard  the fact that the enemy is moving and using cover, maing them much more difficult to hit than on a test firing range.   

The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops.  
Typical - blame the troops for having poor marksmanship rather than providing a weapon that will stop an enemy with one shot.  Perhaps we shold also blame the enemy forces for not standing still long enough?

The study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls.  
100 m is long range???  

Spontaneous thoughts.....


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jun 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> What would you prefer?


6.8mm or, failing that (which ain't gonna fly anytime soon) Mk 262. With one 7.62 rifle (AR-10 comes immediately to mind, as muscle memory would be an asset) per section, and two per Coy Wpns Det, in the hands of Designated Marksmen.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> 5.56mm is fine
> 
> Mk262 is better than C77/M855



I am in 100% agreement here. In service for over 40yrs, and the improvements have been noted since the original 55g M193 was left in the dust back in the early 1980s (although still common outside the circle). The new Mk262 has had some good reviews, adn I lokk forward to gaining more INT on this new ctg.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kal (9 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> 6.8mm or, failing that (which ain't gonna fly anytime soon) Mk 262. With one 7.62 rifle (AR-10 comes immediately to mind, as muscle memory would be an asset) per section, and two per Coy Wpns Det, in the hands of Designated Marksmen.



While both the 6.8mm and Mk 262 options are not foreseeable at this time, is a 7.62mm DM rifle anymore realistic?  Even if a DM rifle if put forth, only that shooter's lethality is increased, leaving their teammates still using 5.56mm.  That's to say that the DM is equipped with a 7.62mm weapon and not a 5.56mm weapon (C7CT).  Then again, some is better than none..

For the record, I do agree with your idea.  Well, at least the Mk 262 and DM rifle parts.  I'm not sure if it makes sense, at least logistically, for us (Canadian mil.) to solely re-chamber to 6.8mm without our allies, namely the U.S. doing the same.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jun 2006)

Is the 262 not an option because of the sniper association or because Black Hills only makes so much of it each year?


----------



## starlight_cdn (9 Jun 2006)

> The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away.  The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops.



5.56 is a good round in most of its incarnates.....Any round has three things that are critical when it comes to 'neutralizing' an enemy that the soldier can control.

1. Shot Placement.
2. Shot Placement.
3. Shot Placement.

*Hit 'em in the 'off switch' or put a bunch of rounds in the 'hurts a lot' zone. * 

Everything else....Pentration, Deformation of the round, Permanent Cavity, etc, etc, ad nauseum en in fintum... is beyond the control of the brass dropper.


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

In regards to the 7.62 round and DM per Platoon and Coy, with the introduction of the .338 lupa and the rifle, the Bn's now have a surplus of C3's...and I know my Bn has though of that and is using it to it's advantage (feel free to speculate but I'm not going any farther with it)

As for the 5.56 round it was noted back in Somalia what was occurring with the round on slim people ( that is of course noted from the book Blackhawk Down) it was always discussed at my level among section Comdr's and down on what to do during and engagement using the 5.56 round and it was a concensus that you continue firing at your intended target till that target was down and stayed down. If that took 2 rounds then fine if it took a mag well so be it but you know your target is no longer a threat.

I think the real issue for our soldiers would/will be turkey necking during the engagement where they fire 2 rounds or so then take their eyes off the target and look to see if they hit( which from what I have heard is a very common reaction to shooting at a live target for the first time) and if the round passes through means that the target will be able to move to cover again.

Although shot placement can be somewhat controlled in term of point of aim generally speaking it's more mass of rounds striking the target doing damage then shot placement IMO that is. No I am not advocating the spray and pray or the bang off rounds in a general direction methods, but if you put 15 rounds into a target all aimed the hydrostatic shock alone will damage organs to such a  degree as to be lethal ( Medics more familiar with it please correct me if I am right out of er) let alone the better chance of rounds passing through the heart and lungs.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2006)

Going back to first principles, the 5.56 X 45 was adopted so soldiers could carry more ammunition, have a personal weapon (assault rifle) capable of somewhat controlled automatic fire (anyone who remembers firing a burst from an FN-C2 will know what I mean), and had a flat trajectory which made teaching marksmanship at expected  battle ranges quicker and easier.

Given the vast sunk costs and ready availability of 5.56 X 45, it is more probable the ammunition will become outmoded when plasma rifles in the 25 watt range become available. The laws of diminishing returns apply here. A 6.5 or 6.8 is better than a 5.56, but it is not that much better, and of course there will always be a situation where a 7mm would be even better, or 7.62 X 51 better yet, or .460 Weatherby magnum better still. 5.56 is "good enough" for the sorts of combat in the post WW II era, involving short range engagements at fleeting targets, and offering the rifleman the ability to influence the battle with a high volume of firepower (the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first weapon really designed from the ground up and mass issued to reflect these principles). You will get a lot more out of intensive marksmanship training than changing the calibre of the rifle.

If the expected conditions of combat were to change radically, then it would make sense to go to new principles and design new systems to reflect, but drawn out and expensive failures like the British EM-2, US SPIW and ACR or German G-11 show, things haven't changed enough to warrent a wholesale change in weaponry.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jun 2006)

It's all about kinetic energy.  Doubling a projectile's mass will double kinetic energy.  Doubling a projectile's velocity will quadruple kinetic energy.  So, the calibre isn't the only thing, but mass of the projectile.  (FYI: KE=1/2massxVelocity 2)  Given that a longer barrel will produce a higher muzzle velocity, perhaps the bullet is fine (I really don't know, just asking), but is there a way to increase barrel length without increasing overall weapon length? (eg: "Bullpup" design?)


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

Wow when I joined the Army I thought my days of physics were long behind me....in fact I figured the only math I would need to know was count to 29 change mag!  ;D

The issue with bullpup design IMO is you're losing overall weapon length, which means that in terms of bayonet fighting your at closer ranges then we are now. Think about it the C7 at just over a meter I believe is longer then almost all Bullpup's meaning that in a bayonet fight the advantage goes to the C7. Also in my experience which is limited I will admit with bullpups I find they are more complicated in manufacture and the moving parts tend to jam easier (like I said I'm basing this observation on the 2 bullpups I have fired the SA80 and the SA80A2 and yes I know they aren't good examples).

I'll keep my C7 and just aim higher and shoot more at a single target.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jun 2006)

For terminal effect info
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/emrgncywarsurg/default.html

Click on the file of Weapon Effects and Parachute Injuries


Additionally  http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=273976



Duey -- some idiot JAG determined the Mk262 not suitable for general issue (this is out of KAF  -- despite its use elsewhere in the Forces)


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

"The average
point forward distance in tissue is about 12 cm, after
which it yaws to about 90°, flattens, and then breaks at
the cannalure (a groove placed around the mid section
of the bullet). The slightly heavier M-855 bullet used
with the M-16A2 rifle, shows a similar pattern to the M-
193 bullet" - Taken from the article posted by I6

So if I am reading that right it takes nearly a foot of soft tissue damage before you get optimal effects from the 5.56mm round and the difference between the M-193 and the M-855 is negligible.

So then we really should be trained to shoot at the upper chest area, there by hitting bone and achieving fragmentation and tumble at near impact distance.

Am I interpreting that wrong?


----------



## KevinB (9 Jun 2006)

Some of the gelatin shots on AR15.com give a better perspective.

However the typical M855/C77 lot has a 7" Neck in Gel -- before yawing and fragmentation at the cannelure occurs.


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> However the typical M855/C77 lot has a 7" Neck in Gel -- before yawing and fragmentation at the cannelure occurs.



That's still half a foot is it not? so the round travels 6-7 inches before starting to reach optimal effects in soft tissue area. which by my math means that optimal effect occurs near the rear of the target closer to the exit wound then where want it which would be as near as we could get to the impact site.

Meaning by my interpretation that aiming centre of mass in the flesh area would have less then the desired effect, where as if we were to aim higher into the bone mass that makes up the chest cavity we would achieve near perfect effect on penetration given the likelyhood of hitting bone. which would cause the round to fragment and tumble almost on impact causing more vital organ damage then anywhere else on the body.

*Edits are for spelling*


----------



## KevinB (9 Jun 2006)

Yeah - hence why the search for better ammo...

  M855 works -- its just not ideal.   With Mk262 and a 2-3" neck you get quicker fragmentation and out to a longer range/lower velocity


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

In which case your telling me that bureaucracy is keeping that round out of circulation

My next question is why?


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> However the typical M855/C77 lot has a 7" Neck in Gel -- before yawing and fragmentation at the cannelure occurs.


So it's an OK round for shooting fat people?  ???


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So it's an OK round for shooting fat people?  ???



Statistics would indicate yup that's what it is good at, glad I'm skinny ;D


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2006)

Once again, there is an infinite number of possibilities to take into account. If the target is wearing soft body armour (i.e. you miss the strike plate), or you happen to hit something like a rucksack or radio backpack strap, then the bullet will expend some of its energy and deform before it passes into the target. If you are fighting against people who believe that drugs, alcohol, sorcerers and disguises will protect them from bullets, then it might be necessary to use something really hard hitting like a 12 gage shotgun firing deer slugs or 00 magnum shot to "persuade" them to stay down with one shot.

In general, proper application of the principles of marksmanship allied with constant practice will get the most out of any round, and like I said, 5.56 may not be ideal every time, but in the vast majority of situations it is "good enough".


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jun 2006)

Art,
"good enough" - ain't. If we're gonna stick with a round that has proven less than marvelous, why not upgrade it a bit? Go with the better cartridge, and save the crap stuff for training 'til it's all gone.

Better, why not go to a round that gives greater range/accuracy/energy dump, and is still controllable on full-auto? With modern gunfightin' drills and kit, even 7.62 is controllable now. 6.8 far more so.


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Once again, there is an infinite number of possibilities to take into account. If the target is wearing soft body armour (i.e. you miss the strike plate), or you happen to hit something like a rucksack or radio backpack strap, then the bullet will expend some of its energy and deform before it passes into the target.



I would argue that the few countries that wear body armour are more our allies then enemies, I would go so far as to say that as far back as just about any operation we have been on almost none of the "adversaries" had body armour on, not the Serbs or Croats or Turks or Somali's etc etc, so then why do we have a round that needs something to go through before it does it's job?

As for 7.62mm this excerpt from the article that I6 posted tells me it is also not the best round for what we need.

"The 7.62 mm NATO rifle cartridge is still used in sniper
rifles and machine guns. After about 16 cm of penetration,
this bullet yaws through 90° and then travels base forward.
A large temporary cavity is formed and occurs at the point
of maximum yaw"

7.62mm requires more flesh mass to penetrate then the 5.56mm thus making it great for shooting at person wearing body armour but again how often have we ever done that?

I think maybe the best solution is the Mk262 round that has been discussed as well as training to shoot to the upper to mid chest area with the 5.56 round to achieve maximum effect.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2006)

In effect, we are going to get into a political rather than a technical fight if "we" are advocating changing ammunition. The EM-2 adopted the .280 "ideal" round in the 1950s, and was being put into pre production.

The United States, with vast stocks of 7.62 X 51, was reluctant to dispose of it all and wasteall that money. Ultimately they persuaded NATO to adopt 7.62 as the standard, which was used in the FN series, M-14, G-3 etc. The EM-2 was not adaptable, so the project ended. In a similar fashion, the 6.5mm was identified back in the 1980's as the ideal LMG round, but logistical considerations led to the 5.56 round being universally applied to rifles and LMGs. 7.62 has advantages in penetration (especially for people hiding behind walls or cars), and a long range which is great for MGs.

If you are suggesting a _better_ 5.56 round (different weight, charge, cross section, external shape) then it would be much much easier to get it in circulation; no one has to buy new rifles or upper receivers. I'm quite with you there. IF you are seriously advocating 6.5 or 6.8mm, then there will be many bunfights between advocates of each particular round, improved 5.56 and doing nothing, which is a lot of time and energy expended.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2006)

Doesn't range to target have an impact on available energy at time of impact?  Just another of those variables that the Mayor was talking about.

The M16 with its original round was optimized for combat at ranges under 200m.   The M16A2 with the SS109, I believe was optimized for longer range shooting, so that it would be effective out to 800m.

The 7.62mm, or .308 is derivative of all those turn of the last century rounds which were intended to be used in weapons like the Lee Enfield (.303) that were equipped with sights out beyond 1200 yards.  Engaging targets at 400 yards in pre WW1 training was more the norm.

If engagements beyond 100m are now considered long range, then perhaps it is little wonder that all of the above rounds have passed clean through the target before either the round or the target notice the difference.

Is there, perhaps, an argument for a larger caliber, higher mass, lower velocity round for the Close Quarter Battle?  Perhaps the urban trooper is better equipped with something like the HK MP5 in a 0.40?


----------



## mudgunner49 (9 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> It's all about kinetic energy.  Doubling a projectile's mass will double kinetic energy.  Doubling a projectile's velocity will quadruple kinetic energy.  So, the calibre isn't the only thing, but mass of the projectile.  (FYI: KE=1/2massxVelocity 2)  Given that a longer barrel will produce a higher muzzle velocity, perhaps the bullet is fine (I really don't know, just asking), but is there a way to increase barrel length without increasing overall weapon length? (eg: "Bullpup" design?)



Kinetic energy is not everything - or even MOST of everything.  In order for it to be a factor, the round MUST connect and the fact of the matter is that the majority of rounds fired in combat are not hits.  For that reason the concept of "rate over weight" makes much sense.  I am not advocating or endorsing the "spray and pray" theory here, however when part of your job is to fire enough rounds to keep the bad guys' head down while maneouvring into a position to put one in his pumpkin, you may not be able to carry enough 7.62 (esp in a TV ).

Read "Gunfighting 101" by Dwayne Dwyer for further elucidation on the topic and see whether your current arguement holds water when faced with cold hard reality...


have a great weekend,

blake


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jun 2006)

mudgunner49 said:
			
		

> Kinetic energy is not everything - or even MOST of everything.  In order for it to be a factor, the round MUST connect and the fact of the matter is that the majority of rounds fired in combat are not hits.  For that reason the concept of "rate over weight" makes much sense.  I am not advocating or endorsing the "spray and pray" theory here, however when part of your job is to fire enough rounds to keep the bad guys' head down while maneouvring into a position to put one in his pumpkin, you may not be able to carry enough 7.62 (esp in a TV ).
> 
> Read "Gunfighting 101" by Dwayne Dwyer for further elucidation on the topic and see whether your current arguement holds water when faced with cold hard reality...
> 
> ...


Hi Blake
Yes, I'll have a great weekend.  You too.
But, consider what "effect" you want.  If you wish to merely suppress, then you're right, you don't have to hit your target.  If you wish to actually hit him or her, then kinetic energy is what you need (combined with "behind armour effects", where "armour" equals "epidermis").  If all you wish to do is suppress, then a paint ball gun firing simunition may do the trick, UNLESS dude knows that he won't die if hit with said paint ball.  If you wish to pop one into him at *x* metres, then fire something that will take him or her down.

As for bullpup being too small, I am not advocating a reduction in overall weapon length, but rather lengthening the barrel without lengthening overall weapon.  So, imagine the current C7A2 gone bullpup, but instead of the barrel length being (whatever it is), but about 10 cm longer.  Muzzle velocity would then be increased.  Having said that, of course, you increase stressors on barrel (radial, hoop, linear, etc) and increase recoil UNLESS you put some sort of muzzle brake on it (!).

Cheers


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (9 Jun 2006)

I watched a show where they said that a 5.56 round actually does more damage then a 7.62 round, their reasoning behind this was that when the 5.56 round hits, its breaks up and its pieces bounce around through out the body, and the 7.62 round actually made a cleaner shot, They asked Doctors which would they would rather treat and they said 7.62 because it is a much cleaner wound and much easier to treat then the 5.56 round.


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Jun 2006)

*CDN* Blackhawk

We already have discussed why both rounds seem to be sub standard in terms of the doing the proper job at our engagement ranges, maybe you should ready the links put up by Infidel-6 they proved very enlightening to me.

*Edit: Because I got the name wrong, sorry CDN Blackshirt


----------



## Armymedic (9 Jun 2006)

Gentlemen,

The reason the 5.56 mm round is sufficent is that to kill a man, any man, it is not the size of the hole, but where it is and how much blood it will leak out. Penetrating trauma to the brain and heart will cause instantaneous death, regrdless of the cause. The rest is just bonus. The concept is as many holes as you can, perferably close to the shut off buttons of the body. It does not matter if the maker of those holes are a bullet or an ice pick...the holes will kill you the same.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jun 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Gentlemen,
> 
> The reason the 5.56 mm round is sufficent is that to kill a man, any man, it is not the size of the hole, but where it is and how much blood it will leak out. Penetrating trauma to the brain and heart will cause instantaneous death, regrdless of the cause. The rest is just bonus. The concept is as many holes as you can, perferably close to the shut off buttons of the body. It does not matter if the maker of those holes are a bullet or an ice pick...the holes will kill you the same.


not quite. You're ignoring some basic bullet-science stuff.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Jun 2006)

Not talking bullets at all...just things that make holes in people.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jun 2006)

The main advantage to 5.56mm is that it uses fragmentation as an additional method of injury - rather than just penetration.

For M193 and M855 the bullet will typically fragment at velocities over 2700 FPS (impact velocity) and redueced fragmentation down to 2500 fps.  Mk262 will fragment down to (typically) 2200 fps impact velocity.

 Below those velocities it tends to act like most of the other boattailed designs - and yaws - but does not fragment - causing limited temporary and permanent cavity.


ArmyMedic is 100% correct on the dynamics of injury for incapcitation and death.  Either a CNS disruption or blood loss is required -- and CNS hits are the only way to shut down an opponent immediately.  

One of the problems in combat shooting - is 1) hitting the target 2) immediate incapcitation.
  One individual I know hit a tgt 11 times with C77 ball from a 10" C8CQB --- while the wounds where fatal the tgt was not stopped until it was headshot -- the distance was under 25m.

At longer ranges one is not as concerned about immediate incapacitation -- however in CQB distance without immediate (or next to immediate) incapcitation the tgt can still manage to perform actions (which will likely do you harm) in the time it take for the system to shutdown from blood loss.

In a recent event in Kabul 5 shooters held back a large attack -- all the defenders where wounded - but managed to stay in the fight sicne they did not suffer major incapcitating wounds -- even though one was shot COM.  (attackers where using AK-47/AKM with 7.62mmX39 M44 ball)


While I support the idea of adding a 7.62mm DM rifle to the rifle sections -- ideally it would be using the 175gr Sierra Match King - for both accuracy at range and the additional terminal effect over ball.  The 178gr Hornady TAP would be ideal -- however due to the ruling on ballistic tip ammunition it can only be used by units that have a Counter terrorist mandate and are not impreaded by rulings of the Hauge Convention.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

AM's post was accurate, as far as it went. But he didn't include the other factors of gunfightin', like the fact that I really don't care if the bullet kills the dude, as long as it makes him lie down and stop shooting at me. I can always finish him off with a big rock later. Let him lie there and bleed out. It'll give him something to think about, and keep him busy while I deal with his friends. Or polish my boots. Whatever.

Lethality is not my over-riding concern. That's why I would prefer a larger round that penetrates less deeply. To deliver all its' energy inside the body shortly after penetration. I would also prefer that same round be more accurate out farther, just to give more options in deserts and mountains. If I can't have a bigger cartridge, I want a better one.

As for the Hague Conventions, if the gov't has the stones, it can withdraw from any it chooses. We never ratified the "No civvies over uniforms" clause, for instance. We can withdraw from the stupid ones involving "bulletology".


----------



## KevinB (10 Jun 2006)

Roger that.

 Mk262 is fully JAG approved (US Col Park-Hayes ruling - that we have accepted previously on the 168gr and 175gr SMK's).

The US FBI "standard" for penetration in live tissue is a min of 12"   - pretty much any rifle round except the light polmer tipped varmit bullets will do this.

 IMHO the CF should adopted the Mk262 round wholesale (as loaded by BlackHills in the short term and a IVI loading when they can get to capacity) use C77 for field training while stocks still exist.

I have Mk262  ;D  -- but then again I also get issued Hollow point handgun ammo.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> ..... while I deal with his friends. *Or polish my boots*.


I guess it's hard to escape spending one's formative years with the RCR  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> IMHO the CF should adopted the Mk262 round wholesale (as loaded by BlackHills in the short term and a IVI loading when they can get to capacity) use C77 for field training while stocks still exist.


concur. Steve? Gord? Rick? You guys listening?



> I have Mk262  ;D  -- but then again I also get issued Hollow point handgun ammo.


sure. Rub it in. Ya jerk!  ;D


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess it's hard to escape spending one's formative years with the RCR  ;D


you, I'm ignoring. nyaaah!


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Jun 2006)

I don't so much care if I have to put 15 rounds into a person so long as he stops moving when I'm done, but If I could have done it in 2 or 3 rounds with a  ammo selection well then I think somethings wrong.

Having now read this thread I know what my actions overseas will be, I'll be aiming upper chest with each round, seeing that I should strike bone and lung areas while my round fragments and hopefully strikes the heart, I'm fairly certain my rounds per target drop will be higher then anyone who aimed centre mass with the C77 ball ammo.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2006)

I will still advocate the best solution to this argument is not "bulletology" at all, but marksmanship training. "Centre of visible mass" is a useful training tool, since the shooter will be able to locate this quickly and even if the target moves you should still have a strike on target. In most situations I suspect you will find the centre of visible mass is indeed the upper chest and torso since the target is usually half hidden behind a car or looking out a window.

Unless you are trying something out of the movies (like using a pistol to engage a target 100m + away) this should give you the maximum results out of whatever ammunition you are using. I suggest the 25mm chain gun is a good choice.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I will still advocate the best solution to this argument is not "bulletology" at all, but marksmanship training. "Centre of visible mass" is a useful training tool, since the shooter will be able to locate this quickly and even if the target moves you should still have a strike on target. In most situations I suspect you will find the centre of visible mass is indeed the upper chest and torso since the target is usually half hidden behind a car or looking out a window.
> 
> Unless you are trying something out of the movies (like using a pistol to engage a target 100m + away) this should give you the maximum results out of whatever ammunition you are using. I suggest the 25mm chain gun is a good choice.


as shown, center hits do not guarantee stopping the bad guy. Multiple center hits do not. Maximum energy dump does.

Of course we all advocate marksmanship training. Kev and I LIVE for shootin'! (Which is kinda sad, really.) But bullet type matters as much as bullet placement.


----------



## oyaguy (10 Jun 2006)

Interesting topic. I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.

One thing that did catch my eye though were comments about bullpup rifles. Whatever the merits of such a design, keeping bayonet fighting in mind when designing a rifle would just be dumb. Chance are, even in the bayonets heyday at the end of a Brownbess, the reason you died at the point of bayonet is because you got shot and were finished off by a bayonet because the guy wanted to loot your body. Another prime motive for the bayonet no longer exists as standing in a square to fight off cavalry would be pretty useless these days. 

Whatever the calibre of catridge or the rifle design, a bayonet today is nothing but a weapon of  shock or last resort. Even as a last resort I bet a lot of soldiers would simply use their empty rifles as clubs.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jun 2006)

"like a 12 gage shotgun firing deer slugs or 00 magnum shot to "persuade" them to stay down with one shot."

- From a purely vascular damage point of view, No. 1 Shot beats buckshot.  More surface area balanced with muzzle energy. Best all-round, all-family HD load is a 20 guage firing a 1 oz load of No. 1.  
Slugs will overpenetrate the drywall, pink fiberglas and vinyl siding bewteen your muzzle and your neighbour's goldfish tank.

"The United States, with vast stocks of 7.62 X 51, was reluctant to dispose of it all and wasteall that money. Ultimately they persuaded NATO to adopt 7.62 as the standard, which was used in the FN series, M-14, G-3 etc. The EM-2 was not adaptable, so the project ended."

- The USA did not have ANY 7.62 mm yet.  It had yet to be adopted. They were using .30 Cal U.S. (.30-06) still.  Canada was the first country to adopt a 7.62 rifle ( though our GPMG would be .30 cal until 1970 - 15 years later.).  The USA insisted the new NATO calibre be as powerful as the .30 cal U.S. (.30-06, or 7.62 X 63).  With new propellants, they could do that in the T65E3 cartridge case, which was one-half inch shorter than the two and a half inch .30-06. The T65E3 was adopted by NATO as 7.62mm X 51mm NATO.

But before that - a stalemate.  The final meeting called was at Canada's request so somebody would at least make a decision.  They did.  The USA insisted and NATO obliged. We adopted the FN C1A1 in 1955.  Two years later, Colt delivers ten AR-15 s in .223 Rem (adopted as 5.56mm later) to the US Army Infantry Board, Fort Benning,  for testing.  Go figure.

The Brits were looking at a 7mm or so before WW1, but war came, and a war is no time to start changing calibers.  After WW1 the US looked at other options, but WW2 came, and a war is no time  ...  etc.


----------



## Enzo (10 Jun 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess it's hard to escape spending one's formative years with the RCR  ;D



Between Para's comments and this gem above, I'm in a great mood. Thanks, needed that.  "Big Rock" ;D


----------



## Armymatters (10 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The USA did not have ANY 7.62 mm yet.  It had yet to be adopted. They were using .30 Cal U.S. (.30-06) still.  Canada was the first country to adopt a 7.62 rifle ( though our GPMG would be .30 cal until 1970 - 15 years later.).  The USA insisted the new NATO calibre be as powerful as the .30 cal U.S. (.30-06, or 7.62 X 63).  With new propellants, they could do that in the T65E3 cartridge case, which was one-half inch shorter than the two and a half inch .30-06. The T65E3 was adopted by NATO as 7.62mm X 51mm NATO.
> 
> But before that - a stalemate.  The final meeting called was at Canada's request so somebody would at least make a decision.  They did.  The USA insisted and NATO obliged. We adopted the FN C1A1 in 1955.  Two years later, Colt delivers ten AR-15 s in .223 Rem (adopted as 5.56mm later) to the US Army Infantry Board, Fort Benning,  for testing.  Go figure.
> 
> The Brits were looking at a 7mm or so before WW1, but war came, and a war is no time to start changing calibers.  After WW1 the US looked at other options, but WW2 came, and a war is no time  ...  etc.



Blame General Maxwell Taylor of the US Army for being so dead set against the lighter round. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who discovered that the testers that were testing the M-14 vs. the AR-15 were biased towards the M-14, and ordered firstly a halt to M-14 production, and a new round of testing, which ruled in favour for the AR-15. In the 1970's, when the Americans announced that they were equipping the units in Europe with the M-16, the Brits were pissed off, as they knew they were right all along that the 7.62mm NATO was too heavy for automatic fire. So, after some testing in 1977, they settled on an updated version of the 5.56mm round, the Belgian SS109 round, for NATO standardisation.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jun 2006)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Interesting topic. I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.
> 
> One thing that did catch my eye though were comments about bullpup rifles. Whatever the merits of such a design, keeping bayonet fighting in mind when designing a rifle would just be dumb.



Here we use the ADI licenced upgraded copy of the Austrian 5.56mm AUG, known as the F88 family here. The overall advantage is the SMG length yet will a 508mm bbl (20").

Only the 508mm bbl is fitted with a bayonet lug, while the shorter carbine bbl has the ability to have one attached (some SF units get approval to have them mounted) On my issued F88C (carbine) and in my regiment, no bayonet lugs, yet we have the Buck and Lan-Kay M9 for use as a knife. 508mm bbls fitted with the M203PI GLA also have the bayonet lug removed (it screws on the threaded part of the bbl).

Here is a pic of the current ADI F88S (this one 1998 manufacture), 508mm bbl w/ Picatinny rail and 1.5X ADI optics.

As for a bayonet lug, well in Iraq the Poms did a bayonet assault against the enemy with good effect, and although maybe perhaps outdated, well, better to have a bayonet lug and not need it, than need a bayonet lug and not have it!

My 2 cents,

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (10 Jun 2006)

Lets keep in mind bayonet fighting does not mesh well with weapon mounted lights, IR Lasers, Supressors and Grenade launchers...


----------



## Recce41 (10 Jun 2006)

I still love my 7.62. AAAAAh the FN. Even on those windy days in Petawawa it would hit centre.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Lets keep in mind bayonet fighting does not mesh well with weapon mounted lights, IR Lasers, Supressors and Grenade launchers...


VERY good point.  Although bayonets still have uses to put holes into people (much like any knife), how much meat do we want on the end of the "rifle sandwich?"  I'm not that well versed with rifle balance, etc, but with M203, lasers (frickin' lasers, at that!) and so forth, does it throw off the "jump" associated with firing a round, thereby affecting accuracy?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Interesting topic. I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.
> 
> One thing that did catch my eye though were comments about bullpup rifles. Whatever the merits of such a design, keeping bayonet fighting in mind when designing a rifle would just be dumb. Chance are, even in the bayonets heyday at the end of a Brownbess, the reason you died at the point of bayonet is because you got shot and were finished off by a bayonet because the guy wanted to loot your body. Another prime motive for the bayonet no longer exists as standing in a square to fight off cavalry would be pretty useless these days.
> 
> Whatever the calibre of catridge or the rifle design, a bayonet today is nothing but a weapon of  shock or last resort. Even as a last resort I bet a lot of soldiers would simply use their empty rifles as clubs.


You start your post by highlighting your level of knowledge of military topics in general, and then come off as an expert in the bayonet.  I disagree with your argument (my previous post notwithstanding about the "rifle sandwich").  Don't overlook or underplay the value of shock as a weapon.  In some situations, a bayonet fixed and pointing at your throat is sometimes enough to freeze you.  A barrel can be stared down, but an aggressive posture with a pointy knife aimed at your head is a bit different.  And the bayonets of today have no use for cavalry charges.  Just because something was invented for one reason doesn't mean it doesn't still have its use.  Check out the internet, designed to share US data between computers in the event of nuclear war with the USSR.  Alas, we are using it in so many ways these days, including: porn, information warfare, information sharing, crime detection and prevention, entertainment, etc etc.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I suggest the 25mm chain gun is a good choice.




Ah, a man after my very heart.  God bless the 25mm


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.


good policy. Should have followed it here.

While I personally don't have much use for bayonet fighting (I prefer to have one hand free to grab, deflect, eye-gouge, etc) for the average troopie with 10 minute's worth of hand-to-gland, it's a good idea. And if he's actually at the point of fixing, he probably doesn't give a rat's about the state of his PAQ-4 or Surefire, 'cause he got no mo' bullets.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jun 2006)

Agreed and bayonets still have uses.   I dont personally beleive they belong as standard warfighting kit on the infantryman anymore (I'd rather see more pistols and suppressed carbines...)  BUT they do have roles - specifically crowd control ops.  

Back to 5.56mm -- given the SS109 round was chosen back when we contemplated fighting it out with opponents in PBA - it made some sense.  However it has been eclipsed in performance (range, accuracy and terminal performance by the heavier OTM rounds -- this is an area where I would suggest the Lethality Lab in Valcartier do some research.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Back to 5.56mm -- given the SS109 round was chosen back when we contemplated fighting it out with opponents in PBA - it made some sense.


Forgive my ignorance, but what (who?) is PBA?

Anyway, you make some very excellent points re: effects on targets at closer ranges.  Specifically the fact that at longer ranges than 100m, it matters little that dude will survive 8-10 seconds after being hit.  When dude is at 5-10 metres, he can still pose a threat before blood loss, shock, whatever, overtakes his adrenaline high.  So, one "quick" fix is multiple shots with existing ammo, hopefully in the upper thorax, throat and head.  Now, please don't think of me as a heretic, but does the 9mm smg still have a niche in such an environment?  I am NOT suggesting that we bring back the C1 SMG, but MP5?  Something similar?


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Jun 2006)

VG

Now your getting into how much does one section need to carry? and if you suggest even say 1 guy carry just an MP5 then unless your engagement range starts at 25m then you have a soldier out of the firefight till it reaches that range, I have been having this argument in the context of C6 gunners but that's another discussion really.

No I agree with I6 on this we need to start looking at a new round or at least an updated version of the 5.56mm.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> VG
> 
> Now your getting into how much does one section need to carry? and if you suggest even say 1 guy carry just an MP5 then unless your engagement range starts at 25m then you have a soldier out of the firefight till it reaches that range, I have been having this argument in the context of C6 gunners but that's another discussion really.
> 
> No I agree with I6 on this we need to start looking at a new round or at least an updated version of the 5.56mm.


Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting for one minute that we add more meat to the section sandwich (I need to find a new metaphor).  I'm just throwing it out there to see if it's a viable tool to have in the toolbox.  Perhaps if an "element" finds itself in an urban setting, expecting trouble, then would, hypothetically, the 9mm be of use?
As an historical context, when the German Army came across to Stalingrad, they lost their advantage.  Some of the obvious were the loss of the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe (ah, the Luftwaffe, the Washington Generals of the History Channel!), but one big advantage for the soviets was the prevalence of SMGs in the hands of the young soldiers of the Red Army.  They were utterly useless on the Steppes, but in the close confines of a city, they reigned supreme.

Now, another one to throw out there for the 5.56mm.  Would a blunted round assist, at short range, to stop someone with one to two shots?


----------



## KevinB (10 Jun 2006)

Dont bring a pistol round to a gunfight... 9mm ball is not a good choice - even out of a SubGun

Sorry - PBA = Personal Body Armour 

There are WAY too many folk (contractors) in Iraq and Afghan enjoying their OP Nimrod fantasies about being SAS with MP-5's

5.56mm in the C77/SS109/M855 is not a bad round -- it works -- but sometimes not as well as it could.  Mk262 is both a good long and short range round.

I think standardizing the C8SFW/FTHB would remove any rifle/subgun issues -- the 16" barrel still put out excellent accuracy (past what troops can use it for) to 500m.
 It fragments C77 to 90m as opposed to the 20" barreled C7 series at 140m
 With mk262 you get 160m frag out of a C8SFW.

If your at the School you may know RobJ (he had some ammo I gave him for others...)  It won't pass a JAG review but its a nice CQB round


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Dont bring a pistol round to a gunfight... 9mm ball is not a good choice - even out of a SubGun


Reminds me of the quote of "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" 


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Sorry - PBA = Personal Body Armour


No probs.  Thanks.


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> There are WAY too many folk (contractors) in Iraq and Afghan enjoying their OP Nimrod fantasies about being SAS with MP-5's


Thanks.  Anyway, as I said, I was just throwing it out there is all.


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> 5.56mm in the C77/SS109/M855 is not a bad round -- it works -- but sometimes not as well as it could.  Mk262 is both a good long and short range round.
> I think standardizing the C8SFW/FTHB would remove any rifle/subgun issues -- the 16" barrel still put out excellent accuracy (past what troops can use it for) to 500m.
> It fragments C77 to 90m as opposed to the 20" barreled C7 series at 140m
> With mk262 you get 160m frag out of a C8SFW.
> If your at the School you may know RobJ (he had some ammo I gave him for others...)  It won't pass a JAG review but its a nice CQB round


Sounds like the mk 262 may then be the trick.  Also, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere, the tools are necessary (of course), but the skills to use those tools effectively are also necessary.  Are there training (shooter) programmes avail that could assist in training a young rifleman (or old crusty guy like me) in the event that they end up in an A-Stan-type place?


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Jun 2006)

VG PM inbound on a place I hear is pretty good for tac shooting, but then again it's in Pet.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jun 2006)

JTF has been farming out the GunFighter program.

 The guys who have taken the UOIC should be able to run it at the home units if your unit is bashful about phoning Ottawa.

MarkC and the guys from 3VP put on a good one via some of the Trout Farms plank owners.


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Jun 2006)

Yeah in term of the Urban Op's Instructors Course, those that came back from it really added a depth of knowledge to my skills personally. I highly recommend some of the shooting instruction they passed on.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think standardizing the C8SFW/FTHB would remove any rifle/subgun issues -- the 16" barrel still put out excellent accuracy (past what troops can use it for) to 500m.
> It fragments C77 to 90m as opposed to the 20" barreled C7 series at 140m
> With mk262 you get 160m frag out of a C8SFW.


I agree completely.

Just a sidenote on CQB. We're focussing entirely on firearms and the little things that come out of them on this thread, to the exlusion of other factors. For instance the usefulness of a rifle cartridges at extreme close range. We're zeroing in on the firearm so much, that we're forgetting the true weapons system is the soldier carrying it.

If he's that close, within 21 feet or 7 meters, then do what the Infantryman is supposed to: close with and destroy the sumbitch. Charge the bastard and snap his little pencil neck. Beat him to death with the rifle in your hands. Take his AK away and shove it down his throat, use the foresight to stir his intestines around a bit. Pick Hadji up, and snap his spine over your knee.

Just a reminder that the bullet, and the rifle, while important aspects of fighting, are not the only ones.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I agree completely.
> 
> Just a sidenote on CQB. We're focussing entirely on firearms and the little things that come out of them on this thread, to the exlusion of other factors. For instance the usefulness of a rifle cartridges at extreme close range. We're zeroing in on the firearm so much, that we're forgetting the true weapons system is the soldier carrying it.
> 
> ...


Very well put.  Bayonets anyone?  (sorry, being a bit sarcastic here), but in all honesty, VERY good post.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

thanks vG.

And for those who say you won't charge a man that's firing at you, I remind you: he's NOT firing AT you. He's firing in your GENERAL DIRECTION. I can guaran-goddamn-tee you that, whether it’s Mr. Dirka Jihadi, Esquire; an African Baby-soldier; or an O.G. rollin’ outta Compton, he ain’t got the butt of his AK firmly in his shoulder with a  proper cheek-weld, and sight alignment. He’s doing the Beirut Unload. He’s got Comrade Kalashnikov’s contribution to the Arts and Sciences held loosely at waist height, set on rock ’n’ roll, in the Hollywood-approved spray and pray position, and he hasn’t devoted the hundreds of hours it takes to hit anything like that.

You chargin' his underfed, doped-up, untrained and cowardly self is going to further rattle already poor nerves, and what was lousy marksmanship, is now a bullet-hose, with rounds going into the dirt and the sky as much as towards you. You can cover 21 feet damned fast. Especially when motivated by the urge to kill your enemy before he does the same to you.

Anyway, back to guns 'n' stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2006)

> If he's that close, within 21 feet or 7 meters, then do what the Infantryman is supposed to: close with and destroy the sumbitch. Charge the ******* and snap his little pencil neck. Beat him to death with the rifle in your hands. Take his AK away and shove it down his throat, use the foresight to stir his intestines around a bit. Pick Hadji up, and snap his spine over your knee.



Or, I suppose, you could engage the individual opposite with a bayonet.....if you had one.  By the way, how long does it take to re-zero all of those iron sights, reflex sights, day/night sights, "death dots", visible lights, IR lights, and grenade launchers after a one-on-one discussion?

And yes, I am being snarky. 

Maybe the idea is not to try and create one weapon that is ideal under all circumstances.  Maybe the idea is to create weapons to suit a variety of circumstances and have people master that variety.

Fighting in open areas, fighting in close confines, fighting isolated individuals, fighting massed bodies, controlling crowds - all, it seems to me, require different weapons, not necessarily different soldiers.  In some instances machine guns and long range snipers are the order of the day, in other cases rifles, shotguns, SMGs, or possibly even bayonets, swords, half-pikes or telescopic "lathis" might be more appropriate.  Is it unreasonable to supply troops with an arsenal of options that they can select according to circumstances?

And a final thought - infanteers are taught that the rifle is their personal weapon while gunners are taught that the bullet is their weapon.  The gun is just a method of delivering the weapon.

With the 5.56 being able to deliver blanks, simunitions, frangibles, low velocity, high velocity, ball, AP, "disintegrating" rounds like this Mk262 and presumably marker rounds like paintballs couldn't some thought be given to having infanteers see their rifles the same way the gunners see their guns?   Issue the rifle with a wide range of rounds available, from Nonlethal to CQB to Long Range and issue a separate club/pointy stick to deal with those intimate discussions.  

And I understand the Conventions issue on disintegrating rounds (dum-dum, defenders etc).  But if the police can legally justify the use of the rounds on the basis of reduced collateral damage (less likely to harm the innocent standing behind the target) surely a similar case could be made in the current circumstances where you are looking at high intensity constabulary duties?  

The argument against the dum-dum was a moral one, about cleanly killing/wounding an honourable foe and not inflicting undue suffering, (fairly bizarre thought on a battlefield dominated by artillery).  The counter is another moral argument about killing an individual that has knowingly accepted the risk associated with taking up arms, balanced against the risk of killing bystanders.  You only want your target to die.

Edit: VG got his comment in as I was writing.  ......something about thinking alike .....seldom differing, Oh well  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or, I suppose, you could engage the individual opposite with a bayonet.....if you had one.  By the way, how long does it take to re-zero all of those iron sights, reflex sights, day/night sights, "death dots", visible lights, IR lights, and grenade launchers after a one-on-one discussion?


who gives a shit? If I'm down to my bayonet, chances are it's too tight for anything else, and either I stick the fucker, or I die. I can re-zero later.



> Maybe the idea is not to try and create one weapon that is ideal under all circumstances.  Maybe the idea is to create weapons to suit a variety of circumstances and have people master that variety.


you mean like service rifle, shotgun, light machine gun, medium machine gun, bayonet, pistol, riot baton, fist, heavy SRAAW, Medium SRAAW, fragmentation grenade, smoke grenade, OC spray can, tear gas canister, and improvised weapons?



> And a final thought - infanteers are taught that the rifle is their personal weapon


 no, we are tuaght that WE are are our personal weapon, and that we have a number of options available to us.



> With the 5.56 being able to deliver blanks, simunitions, frangibles, low velocity, high velocity, ball, AP, "disintegrating" rounds like this Mk262 and presumably marker rounds like paintballs couldn't some thought be given to having infanteers see their rifles the same way the gunners see their guns? Issue the rifle with a wide range of rounds available, from Nonlethal to CQB to Long Range and issue a separate club/pointy stick to deal with those intimate discussions.


   and, under fire, when li'l Johnny is grabbing for the wrong magazine? "Sorry, Mrs. Bloggins, but he died because he inserted a simmunition magazine into his rifle instead of jacketed hollowpoint." Not to mention that we have a POS Tac-Vest that can't carry enough of the right kit now. And we have an excellent bayonet now, for intimate encounters of the lethal variety, and we get issued blunt objects for situations requiring the delicate touch.



> And I understand the Conventions issue on disintegrating rounds (dum-dum, defenders etc).  But if the police can legally justify the use of the rounds on the basis of reduced collateral damage (less likely to harm the innocent standing behind the target) surely a similar case could be made in the current circumstances where you are looking at high intensity constabulary duties?


 the Conventions are meaningless if we have a Gov't with the stones. 


> The argument against the dum-dum was a moral one, about cleanly killing/wounding an honourable foe and not inflicting undue suffering, (fairly bizarre thought on a battlefield dominated by artillery).


 And they were based on faulty understanding of hollowpoints, and ballistics in general. 

I love this thread.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2006)

Jings, you're feeling feisty this morning paracowboy.  

1. who gives a crap.....etc.  True enough, do you have room for a bayonet?  
2. you mean like..... Just like that, so why the concern/focus on the 5.56?
3. ....WE are our personal weapon... Great stuff.  It wasn't always thus.
4. ....under fire.....Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance ....Don't necessarily want to get caught in open country with only a shotgun and fists, do you?
5. ...Govt and stones..... Agreed.  
6.  ....faulty ....ballistics ..... Probably.  Science evolves.  Laws evolve too.

Ref 5 and 6.  Observations on hollow-points, dum-dums, etc offered to help stoneless lawyers find arguments to help Government in quest to make paracowboy a more effective death-tech.  ;D

Cheers.

PS ref arsenal of rounds vs arsenal of weapons - You would rather carry a separate 5 kg chunk of metal to launch every different 25 gram round so as to prevent confusion?  Or would you rather carry one 5 kg chunk of metal with 200 distinct 25 gm rounds that would enable you to engage the same variety of targets?  

10 kg of load - option A - two weapons with two rounds total or option B - one weapon with 202 rounds total.


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Jun 2006)

Kirkill

I can honestly say I agree with Para, when the brown stuff hits the fan I don't want to be trying to remember where I put my mags of 5.56 ball, nor honestly will I have the time to analyze the situation enough to think Hmmm I should use my hollow points now cause my target is getting to be 25m away.

I see your point but it's juts not feasible not one little bit. Heck in all honesty you'll be lucky on a mag change if 1 in 10 of your soldiers doesn't waste precious seconds banging the side of his rifle trying to hit that bolt catch (c.ocking handle, c.ocking handle, c.ocking handle I can't stress that enough), now your asking him to to figure out which mag went in which holder all while under fire, not doable sorry I can't see it happening. 

Go with a better 5.56mm round forget trying to change the load out or the weapons systems.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Jings, you're feeling feisty this morning paracowboy.


we're talkin' about something I have devoted years of study to, and enjoy immensely. Kicking the ass of men who deserve it. I got all kinds of time for this!

1. yes. The bayonet rides on the lug. My bayonet lug is unimpeded. I put my laser sight on the weaver rail on top of the upper receiver, and use a peep-hole sight. Iron sights are more than sufficient for any ranges that I would employ a laser sight for. I dislike optical sights anyway. One jump, one bump, they lose their zero. Or they break. Iron sights don't. And, unlike the majority of our troops today, I know how to shoot. Whenever posible, I replace iron sights with an EOTech holosight. And all ELCANS should be replaced with EOTechs.

2. because it is still the primary tool carried by the majority of soldiers. And most of them are not bayonets, but CS/CSS. And, if there is a better round, we should get it. Not every problem needs a hammer, but if you have a good enough hammer, you can do a lot more with it.

4. which is why carry more than a shotgun and our fists. We have a CQ and RQMS with all kinds of tools. We look at where we're going, and what we're doing, and plan accordingly. But, if you give Johnny too many options ON HIS PERSON, he's gonna screw up under stress. Far better to limit his options to those he's most likely to need. He's gonna need a shotgun, give him a shotgun, and team him up with a man carrying a C7.



> Ref 5 and 6.  Observations on hollow-points, dum-dums, etc offered to help stoneless lawyers find arguments to help Government in quest to make paracowboy a more effective death-tech.


  there are entire reams of paperwork on this, and it would exceed Mike's bandwidth. In short, hollowpoints are better.



> PS ref arsenal of rounds vs arsenal of weapons - You would rather carry a separate 5 kg chunk of metal to launch every different 25 gram round so as to prevent confusion?


  I would rather carry a rifle/carbine, with an appropriate cartridge; a pistol; a knife/bayonet, and some grenades. In addition, I want some friends along with a suitable mixture of rifles/carbines, shotguns, pistols, grenade launchers, and machineguns. As well as sharp stuff, and exploding stuff. A small toolbox from which to pull the right tool. If we're going into a situation where we don't need to go lethal, we can always downgrade to fists and buttstrokes.

If we know, before departing that we need non-lethal, and don NOT want to escalate, we stop by CQ, drop off the deadly shit, and pick up sticks and sprays.



> Or would you rather carry one 5 kg chunk of metal with 200 distinct 25 gm rounds that would enable you to engage the same variety of targets?


 Sure. Give me a phaser gun I can set on "stun" or "vaporize". Until then, I'll settle for a service rifle I can rely on, and bitch until I get the best round out there for it. And bitch for a better gun. And continue to master the one I have.



> 10 kg of load - option A - two weapons with two rounds total or option B - one weapon with 202 rounds total.


  there is always option C - me choking the sumbitch to death with his own intestines.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jun 2006)

This '556 ruptures at the cannelure and 762 does not' ignores the question: what about the German and Swedish 762 in the 60s 70s?  They were hacking on the USA about 55 grain 556 out of 1 in 12 barrels causing inhumane (?) wounds, when their 762s would do the same thing.

The bullet design/propellant combinations available for new 762 and 556 rounds are out there.  We just have to find one.  But:

Bearing in mind that a service cartridge is by definition a general purpose cartridge, let us remember that terminal ballistics also concerns itself with targets behind car doors, windshields, body armour, chest rigs full of loaded AK mags, wooden doors, trees, concrete block walls, logs  and other bad guys ( think: landing craft, 7.92mm and an MG-42). 

 Now,  do we still have issues with 762 'over-penetration'?


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jun 2006)

OK, I'll try and fight my shyness and jump in on this one......



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way, how long does it take to re-zero all of those iron sights, reflex sights, day/night sights, "death dots", visible lights, IR lights, and grenade launchers after a one-on-one discussion?


A whole lot less time than it takes to go through the funeral/graves' registration details for a dead soldier who may still have a well-sighted bayonetless rifle.



> And a final thought - infanteers are taught that the rifle is their personal weapon while gunners are taught that the bullet is their weapon.  The gun is just a method of delivering the weapon.


Yes, and the infantry soldier, as mentioned above, _is_ the weapon. The bullet is _a_ weapon we use, but it is far from the only one. An old infantry recruiting spiel used to state, quite well I thought, "you stand alone, but you're never alone," acknowldeging those other folks who support the infantryman (you know, the only one who can take and hold ground). But in our case, the infantry soldier IS the weapon, not the bullet.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> And all ELCANS should be replaced with EOTechs.


+1...hell, +2 or +3!!  Right now. Troops are just learning more bad-habit dependancies than the ELCANS are worth.



> _pretty much everything paracowboy said about clubbing, intestines, death & destruction_


Damn, how do you express agreement with someone who, in any other context is _clearly_ in need of therapy...   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2006)

To all


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jun 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Damn, how do you express agreement with someone who, in any other context is _clearly_ in need of therapy


what? I'm an over-achiever!


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2006)

So to summarize:

We need a good general purpose round for the existing rifle/carbine/lmg. Same goes for the GPMG. Special rounds for special occasions are good, but don't confuse or overburden the soldier with too much "stuff". (If I get a magazine of tracer for target indication as a section commander, it always goes in the left pocket of the pants (not webbing or TV) so I don't screw up the magic "watch my trace" moment. Being poor folk, I don't have high speed modular chest rigs to play with, but that would change should I go "over there")

We REALLY need to emphasise marksmanship skills, to get the maximum performance out of whatever you are shooting with.

The soldier (and that goes for *any trade*, since the bad guys have a nasty tendency to show up where thy are not wanted) need to be able to engage from any range from 0m to the maximum range of their weapon. Pointy end of the bayonet, blunt end of the stock, hands, feet, head butts with a helmeted head are equally valid training points along with the principles of marksmanship.

Longer term, weapons designers should look at the form factors of their weapons to avoid the "rifle sandwitch". I suspect some of the devices could be rolled up into modular "all in one" units (flashlights/pointers, for example), and Paracowboy and others have made some good observations about the sorts of sights which should be considered.

I am still of the opinion that the sort of combat conditions we will face this generation are not so different from the post WWII period as to invalidate the types of weapons and ammunition that we currently use, rather some evolutionary improvements will continue to happen.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, and the infantry soldier, as mentioned above, _is_ the weapon. The bullet is _a_ weapon we use, but it is far from the only one. An old infantry recruiting spiel used to state, quite well I thought, "you stand alone, but you're never alone," acknowldeging those other folks who support the infantryman (you know, the only one who can take and hold ground).



To illustrate, the infantry give "parade states" (hats off to the RCR on that one? ) where numbers of troops is given.  Armour will give number of tanks, artillery number of guns, etc.

As for the old "you stand alone, but you're never alone" pamphlet, that little piece of propaganda was on my bedroom wall from the time I was 16 until I joined The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment.  In fact, I used the photo to figure out how to assemble my webbing (196x pattern).


----------



## paracowboy (11 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> As for the old "you stand alone, but you're never alone" pamphlet, that little piece of propaganda was on my bedroom wall from the time I was 16 until I joined The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment.  In fact, I used the photo to figure out how to assemble my webbing (196x pattern).


best one I've ever seen was for the Royal Marines.

Little girl cowering in smouldering wreckage of what used to be a house. 
Caption: She's just seen her home ravaged and destroyed by men. Her family tortured and murdered by men. The last thing she needs to see is another man.

Split.

Bootie reaching for her, with a look of concern, other Booties watching arcs in background. 
Caption: HE is not just another man.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jun 2006)

"To illustrate, the infantry give "parade states" (hats off to the RCR on that one? ) where numbers of troops is given.  Armour will give number of tanks, artillery number of guns, etc."

-  "Pers State" and "Gun and AFV State". Both.  Daily.



Tom


----------



## xavier (12 Jun 2006)

Hi all:
Very spiritd thread. Thanks. It's very enlighetning. Speaking about marksmanship that's exactly one of the conclusion that the 5,56 mm report brought up: to emphasize marksmanship and aiming higher (i.e. centre mass or even headshots)

Here's my question for the shooters: should the Canadian military reemphasize 'old school' marksmanship- iron sight aiming and only after the soldiers have gained a certain proficency they then train with all the fancy optical equipment? Or is that simply unrealistic and it's simply more effective to train soldiers with both iron sights and the optical equipment at the same time?

Thanks!

xavier


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jun 2006)

xavier,

There's many discussions and threads already on that subject. Do a 'search' try Elcan for a start. Let's keep this thread on track for a change. Back to the adequacy of the 5.56mm.


----------



## xavier (12 Jun 2006)

Reeceguy:
Thanks. Sorry I thought I was on topic since the report on the M855 concluded that one way to ensure the effetiveness of that round was to emphasize marksmanship and to aim higher. 
I'll rephrase the question: would emphasis on traditional marksmanship skills increase the lethality of the 5,56mm or do we still need to adopt a different 5,56 cartridge such as the Mk262? Since the Mk 262's effective ballastics either kills the enemy combatant outright or severly incapacitates him

I hope I rephrased my question to bring it back on topic
Thanks again!

xavier


----------



## paracowboy (12 Jun 2006)

we do ned to emphasize marksmanship more, that's a given. Troops don't get near enough time on ranges (although 3VP is doing it's damndest to correct that). I can think of years, where I fired no more than a dozen rounds at work.

The Elcan sight is crap, and the idea seems to be that better doodads will replace skills. 

That being said, why have either/or? Why not have more troops shooting more often, with a better round? And why not give them better optics (EOTech Holosight)?


----------



## Enzo (12 Jun 2006)

Xavier, it's a bit of a cop out to say that marksmanship is solely the key. If that was the case, then the .22LR should be considered for issue since it's uber cheap and a grunt could carry thousands of rounds on their person  ;D

Marksmanship skills are essential, that is simply a given. Each soldier should take it upon themselves to continuously improve their shooting prowess in addition to a solid skill set attained throughout their careers, etc.

The idea is to get the rounds into the dude and keep him down. If a guy darts out from cover 100m away and exposes himself for about ~2-4 seconds, are you going to try for a snap head shot or lead him a bit and put a couple into the largest part of his self that he is presenting to you? Apparently (as I have yet to experience this) it's very frustrating to do just that and have buddy keep on running behind cover. So yes, if you're able to put it into his head, by all means, indulge yourself. But if you're playing tag and you'd like to keep on being the guy who's dominating the court, then it's a good thing to have a round you feel confident in.

You beat me to it Para, but since I wrote this, I'm posting it anyway  >


----------



## xavier (13 Jun 2006)

Enzo & Paracowboy:
Thanks.  I get it- marksmanship is important but so's having a bullet that effective as well 
Enzo: 
True, true. I simply reacted to the information that the new optical equipment appears to have rendered marksmanship less important. So I understand your point, it's more important for the bullet to stay in the body and incapacitate the guy then for the bullet to pass through and allowing the guy to scramble to safety so he can shoot back at you.

Thanks again for your explanations; I'll head back to the sidelines and read more of  the thread

xavier


----------



## paracowboy (13 Jun 2006)

We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.

Third world armies don’t believe that. So you can hit them several times, and they don’t fall down. Even when hit in the torso.

Look at real world examples: Ronald Reagan’s bodyguard was shot with a .22. He FLEW backwards 6 feet. Physics says that the shooter should also have flown backwards 6 feet. Equal and opposite reaction, remember? Why did he? Why did a man weighing more than 200 lbs FLY through the air 6 feet when shot with a .22 handgun? Because Hollywood told him that’s what happens. So he launched himself.

But in reality, a human can soak up a LOT of rounds before going down. Look at the example of that young policewoman, who was shot seven times, and still killed her attackers. 7 times. The human body can take an incredible amount of damage. So we have accounts of people being impaled with fence posts through the chest and living, but they take one small caliber round, and they die immediately. Because they think they're supposed to.

So, if we can get a better round, one that has more oomph!, it will increase the chances of  Zippy the Bad Guy goin’ down when hit. He doesn’t see much TV, or watch many movies. To him, getting shot sucks, but he doesn’t realize that he’s supposed to fly backwards and expire immediately upon getting hit. He thinks he’s supposed to get up and carry on the fight. 

A better round would change his mind.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.
> 
> Third world armies don’t believe that. So you can hit them several times, and they don’t fall down. Even when hit in the torso.A better round would change his mind.



110%


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

Col. Grossman talked about this in his tour as well.  I believe that one of the ways the higher ups are trying to change that is through education (hard considering how we have been brainwashed by hollywood) and believe it or not simunition.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jun 2006)

SIMS are a great tool (as Grossman and other allude) -- It helps prepare the soldier mentally and physically.  (I think Grossman should be mandatory in BSL)

One thing you notice about beginning advanced shooters in sims (and combat) - is they tend to shoot a lot of weapons - since the eyes lock on the threat (weapon) only after more advabced training will they shoot for the upper chest (or head if it calls for that)


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jun 2006)

IODP 1.1 will use simunition this year (I think they have for a couple of years now).  (NB: IODP 1.1 is Phase III, dismounted platoon commander's course).
FWIW, my first experience with "simunition" was as a pasty civvy playing paintball.  Now, I KNOW that this isn't the same thing, but there was at least ONE lesson that MAY translate.
For the very first game (battle inoculation?), we were in an open field with some barrels (the big oil drums).  We lined up and had virtually zero cover.  The aim of that game wasn't to win, but to get shot, to get over that first fear.  Unfortunately, I avoided getting hit.  I was hit on the very next game, in the throat, from about 10 metres.  Frig, did it ever hurt!  Anyway, why did I get hit?  I peered OVER cover (instead of beside it or through it) and Zippy from the blue team nailed me.  What was my lesson?  Don't crest yourself.  I think that was the last time I did that (at least while playing paintball!)

So, in reading through this thread I think that there are a few things to consider


The 5.56 is perhaps a "general purpose" round, as it is designed for use at all ranges.  As mentioned, until we have smart bullets that can alter their physical state at the muzzle, we can't go mixing and matching bullets.  But, something must "alter".  What would that be?  Well, for shorter ranges, where a fatal shot is NEEDED, we need to train to instinctively shoot "the magic spot".  For longer ranges, shoot as is currently taught?  I mean, if the bad guy is at say 250 metres, a near fatal shot may be enough to incapacitate him until you close with and destroy.  Heck, even if it just suppresses him, you've done the trick.

So I guess it comes down to realistic and relevant training, including simunition augmenting live fire.


Too bad we can't shoot our own with 5.56 mm in triaining to get rid of the initial "fear" of bullets (JUST KIDDING)


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Well, for shorter ranges, where a fatal shot is NEEDED, we need to train to instinctively shoot "the magic spot".  For longer ranges, shoot as is currently taught?


3PPCLI is already making good headway with this by teaching the Gunfighter Program, not only to our troops, but to CS/CSS in Brigade. Different skillset for closer ranges. And, the CF has ALWAYS taught to shoot for the center of visible mass, and that is usually the torso. Whether in the prone at 300, or standing at 25.



> I mean, if the bad guy is at say 250 metres, a near fatal shot may be enough to incapacitate him until you close with and destroy.  Heck, even if it just suppresses him, you've done the trick.


 But, if you hit him twice in the chest, and he ain't stopped, then marksmanship takes a second seat to bullet effectiveness, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a sloppy hit that stopped Abdul Q. Jihadi, then a perfect hit that didn't even slow him down.



> So I guess it comes down to realistic and relevant training, including simunition augmenting live fire.


damn skippy!


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> But, if you hit him twice in the chest, and he ain't stopped, then marksmanship takes a second seat to bullet effectiveness, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a sloppy hit that stopped Abdul Q. Jihadi, then a perfect hit that didn't even slow him down.



True enough, perhaps, but in the example given (250 metres) and he's hit, say twice and drops, writhing in pain, or even keeps running, then, at that range and in this situation ONLY, perhaps the remainder of the section could help pump him, OR simply light a smoke, fix bayonets, and await for him to get closer


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2006)

A slight aside, but I seem to recall the 4.7mm bullet proposed for the HK G-11 had an asymmetrical nose to encourage the bullet to tumble and release its energy on impact. A wadcutter or semi wadcutter bullet design would also dump its energy into the target on impact, although I think there are issues like range, accuracy and mechanical issues with the feed system which work against that idea.

In spite of the bulletology arguments,  marksmanship training will always be the key. After all, the supply system might break down and you could end up firing plain old SS-109 5.56, or even lighter American ammunition rather than some "wonder round" hand crafted by I6 or carved from the finest material on paracowboy's CNC milling machine. If the round does not hit the target, there is little effect (the guy might flinch or drop to the ground and hide when he hears the round snap past), but if it does hit, then you get a positive effect, even if it does not kill him outright.

So the bottom line is we need to make the best use of the tools available (what are you going to do when you are out of ammo and have to pick up a discarded AK-47, for example?), while working towards evolving the tools to their best potential.


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In spite of the bulletology arguments,  marksmanship training will always be the key. After all, the supply system might break down and you could end up firing plain old SS-109 5.56, or even lighter American ammunition rather than some "wonder round" hand crafted by I6 or carved from the finest material on paracowboy's CNC milling machine. If the round does not hit the target, there is little effect (the guy might flinch or drop to the ground and hide when he hears the round snap past), but if it does hit, then you get a positive effect, even if it does not kill him outright.


nobody, least of all Infidel or me, is arguing against marksmanship. (We've both bemoaned the lack of proper gun handling on here enough, I'm sure.) We're arguing that marskmanship *alone* is not going to solve the problem we're facing. If it were *just* a matter of shot placement, we could arm everyone with .22 Short. But, small bullets are not as effective as big ones at making people lie down and play dead. Big bullets are not as easy to control. The compromise is a medium bullet, or pumping up the small one to it's maximum effect.

Unless we're going to devote the time and money to training every soldier to hit the medulla oblongata every time, with every shot, we need to give them a round that will dump maximum energy when it strikes the torso, delivering maximum shock, and still be controllable for follow-up shots. The round we're using just don't do that, and there's a better one out there that does. So let's get it. 



> So the bottom line is we need to make the best use of the tools available (what are you going to do when you are out of ammo and have to pick up a discarded AK-47, for example?), while working towards evolving the tools to their best potential.


yes. In other words: more shooting; more realistic training involving shooting and working your way down to head-butts and groin kicks; and a new round with little change to the envelope - better 5.56 round, or preferably adopting the 6.8mm in the Minimi and Colt we're currently using.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes. In other words: *more shooting; more realistic training involving shooting and working your way down to head-butts and groin kicks*


+1 100%


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2006)

I'm not really arguing with you paracowboy, (at least not until my Kevlar turtleneck T shirts arrive  ), but we need to frame the argument to take into account we might not always be getting the ammunition natures we desire. IF every soldier is trained to hit the target reliably, then what is going downrange from his C-7, C-8 or C-9 is less important. There are obvious limitations to this argument, to be sure, but if a soldier has fired his last magazine and scavenges a magazine from a dead or wounded allied soldier (for a worst case scenario), then he can still shoot with confidence knowing he is hitting the target, and the target will go down sooner or later. If later, we can always help the process along with a bayonet, hand grenade, head butt, throat punch etc.

This is far more doable than getting an entirely new round and modifying all weapons accordingly! Remember with the suggested choices we have at least four COA's:

Do nothing
Get improved 5.56
Go to 6.5
Go to 6.8

By the time the competing factions have had it out, new soldiers will be learning about the plasma rifle in the 25 watt range. Let's push for better 5.56 and improved training, so there will be a result in our lifetimes.


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I'm not really arguing with you paracowboy, (at least not until my Kevlar turtleneck T shirts arrive  ), but we need to frame the argument to take into account we might not always be getting the ammunition natures we desire.


I don't think any of us are actually arguing. We're all saying pretty much the same thing, in different terms (if that made any sense). But, I like this thread, and the clarification we're achieving. (I hope the one on Simmunition and LEO/Infantry tactics will be as interesting. I'm having a lot of fun, here.) 



> Let's push for better 5.56 and improved training, so there will be a result in our lifetimes.


I know this is the most do-able scenario, and am only harping on 6.8 in the hopes of keeping it on the radar. The costs are not only prohibitive, but astronomical. Unless Uncle Sam goes with it, and as the first post pointed out, it ain't a-gonner happen. But, I'm goin' down fightin'! As I said, They win, but I'm right.

Now, since I'm not going to get my 6.8 (I recognized that a long time back, and have been pushing for a better round, an upgraded 5.56 since page one, basically.), let's, as you say, bring on a better round for the plastic-fantastic .22, and get the troopies out to shoot it more often.  Let's also throw in more training involving Simunition to hand-to-gland. Between the two, we should be teaching enough  muscle memory that they can engage at 300 (further with a better 5.56, further yet with a 6.8), all the way in to breath-smelling close.


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.....
> 
> But in reality, a human can soak up a LOT of rounds before going down. Look at the example of that young policewoman, who was shot seven times, and still killed her attackers. 7 times. The human body can take an incredible amount of damage.



A SWAT cop buddy of mine took a .223 Remington JSP in the thigh at point blank range.  He lived, and went on to remain a superbly fit street cop (although out of SWAT by his own choosing).  Clearly that tells me he doesn't watch much TV.


----------



## Kal (14 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.



Hollywood also has its share of examples of where an individual incurs an injury and continues on with little ill effect all the while still making one liners.  In reality, that same injury would incapacitate the same individual.  Why aren't we becoming programmed to believe this?


----------



## Kal (14 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Look at real world examples: Ronald Reagan’s bodyguard was shot with a .22. He FLEW backwards 6 feet. Physics says that the shooter should also have flown backwards 6 feet. Equal and opposite reaction, remember? Why did he? Why did a man weighing more than 200 lbs FLY through the air 6 feet when shot with a .22 handgun? Because Hollywood told him that’s what happens. So he launched himself.



Is this fact?  How can this conclusion be drawn?  Did this bodyguard say this is what happened to him?

Para, I don't mean to be a questioning dick, but can you please provide some answers?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

I am going to slowly stick my head back above the parapet again here to ask another (no doubt) silly question. ;D

Actually 2 or 3.

1.  How much life is left in the existing stocks of C7/C8/C9s?
2.  How much inventory of 5.56mm do we keep on hand?
3.  What is the rate of burn on ammo and weapons in peacetime?
4.  What is the current burn rate?
5.  If everybody trained at the level suggested by various posters here (and I am in no position to say otherwise - one of my own grievances was inadequate time on ranges and "militia bullets") what  would the burn rate on weapons and ammo be?

Following on from those questions (rhetorical all) I am going to suggest that in peacetime weapons are cleaned and used as little as possible.  Marksmanship is not a high priority.  
In periods of conflict (note - I did not say war, nasty concept) skill with arms becomes critical but I am guessing that a couple of weeks on the ranges and a 1000 rounds per soldier goes a long ways to fixing that.  Unfortunately all that training uses up stocks and wears out weapons.  Thats the bad news.

That also is the good news though.  If we are eating up inventory, and inventory needs to be replaced, why not replace it with something more suitable to actual conditions? Not necessarily better, just more suitable.

The problem with a peacetime army is that it is much like sitting in one of those old WW1 trenches. You know you are going to get hit and you have to plan to counter it.  You just don't know where, when, how, by whom and in what strength.  Consequently you end up trying to counter threats which may never happen and which others don't see, sometimes you take too much counsel of your fears for the worst and create tools for dealing with phantoms.

Once action is joined, and the enemy has dictated where, when and how the battle is going to be fought then it becomes brilliantly clear you don't need nukes, you need more billy clubs.

Now you no longer have to imagine all the possibilities you may have to deal with you can focus on the reality you are dealing with.

If you need a different round/weapon/etc, when is a better time to look at one?

Too long above parapet - going to ground.

Cheers.


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jun 2006)

Kal, 
It's all in the works of Davie Grossman and cohorts. Required reading for 3 Vp leadership types (and me). It's also why we in the Infantry are changing the way we train, from having troopies continue "fighting" in Simmunition and MILES gear training, to lectures, to 1st Aid being re-vamped via TCCCS.





			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> A SWAT cop buddy of mine took a .223 Remington JSP in the thigh at point blank range.  He lived, and went on to remain a superbly fit street cop (although out of SWAT by his own choosing).  Clearly that tells me he doesn't watch much TV.


you can also see by the example of the young female street cop, that it doesn't impact *everyone*. Didn't work on her, thankfully, and she's still patrolling the streets (according to the newspaper article, anyway. Some Seattle paper, IIRC).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

Perhaps it didn't work on some of these people BECAUSE they have been introduced to the new kind of training discussed to negate the hollywood effect.


----------



## Enzo (14 Jun 2006)

> Following on from those questions (rhetorical all) I am going to suggest that in peacetime weapons are cleaned and used as little as possible.  Marksmanship is not a high priority.
> In periods of conflict (note - I did not say war, nasty concept) skill with arms becomes critical but I am guessing that a couple of weeks on the ranges and a 1000 rounds per soldier goes a long ways to fixing that.  Unfortunately all that training uses up stocks and wears out weapons.  Thats the bad news.



Uh, hell no! _Marksmanship_ *IS* a high priority. Barrels wear, parts can be replaced, it's only money. Your rifle is your weapons system and you should be intimate with it (quite literally an extension of yourself) and that comes with proper training (lots of that on range, in exercise, etc.) and practical experience (as close to combat conditions as you can "safely" replicate). 1000 rds/per... Is that a guess you're willing to stake lives on? This a refresher and such time should already be mandatory prior to a tour along with tons of the aforementioned.



> The problem with a peacetime army is that it is much like sitting in one of those old WW1 trenches. You know you are going to get hit and you have to plan to counter it.  You just don't know where, when, how, by whom and in what strength.  Consequently you end up trying to counter threats which may never happen and which others don't see, sometimes you take too much counsel of your fears for the worst and create tools for dealing with phantoms.



Outdated analogy, yes there is much said about training for the past conflict (there is still much of that to be found in any military) but the current MOUT & insurgent style contacts have been around since before the 90s. Evolution of your systems and tactics, etc. is key and that is shown, i.e., C7A1 - C7A2, etc. Attempting to counter the specific threat is factored into your available weapons systems and their integration within the section, i.e., C7, C8, C6, C9 w/ support: LAV, Griffon (Apache), CF-18, Artillery, etc.


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Perhaps it didn't work on some of these people BECAUSE they have been introduced to the new kind of training discussed to negate the hollywood effect.


entirely likely, as Davie-boy has been well received amongst the Law Enforcement community, and his discoveries/teachings are disseminated widely. My cousin the Mountie and I had possibly the only truly interesting conversation of our lives on it.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

> Uh, hell no! Marksmanship IS a high priority.



Enzo, no argument from me there.  Unforturnately governments, DND, the CF, the Army and the Militia over the years have demonstrated that they do not think we are right. 

Bullets! Bullets! Bullets! You're dead.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jun 2006)

The CF actually pays extra money to IVI to keep it open (well SNC as IIRC they own IVI now).  The draw is so low that is uneconomical for SNC to operate it.

Marksmanship is a VERY perishable skill -- troops whould ideally be shooting everyday - failing that every week.

Armies cost money -- why bother having one that is unskilled and unable to deliver what it should be able to do?

Curently some troops in some units will only be alloted 60 some odd rounds a YEAR  ???
That is a CRIME.

Basically the M16FOW will have a revier lifespan in excess of 100,000 rounds -- barrels between 5k and 20k depending on type of use.
 Bolts between 5-10k rounds usage.

Like Paracowboy I like the 6.8 round in principal -- however until they get a SAW adopted for it - it is a non starter other than specialized unit use.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Like Paracowboy I like the 6.8 round in principal -- however until they get a SAW adopted for it - it is a non starter other than specialized unit use.


and, sadly, not really worth the added expense with 5.56, 5.56 link, 7.62 link, 7.62 hollow point, .50 cal link, .50 cal, .338, 9mm, (did I miss any?). No sense in adding more to the supply system. Far more economical to go to an upgraded .223.

But, I'm still right, dagnabit!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Jun 2006)

I was reading through this thread and originally I wasn’t going to say anything since it has been a long time since I’ve done any serious shooting. However, while reading through the threat I noticed a statement made by paracowboy that caught my eye and I had to comment. Here is the statement: 

“Ronald Reagan’s bodyguard was shot with a .22. He FLEW backwards 6 feet. Physics says that the shooter should also have flown backwards 6 feet. Equal and opposite reaction, remember? Why did he? Why did a man weighing more than 200 lbs FLY through the air 6 feet when shot with a .22 handgun? Because Hollywood told him that’s what happens. So he launched himself.”

Later paracowboy states that he received this info from David Grossman, a well-known expert on human aggression. Unfortunately, this information is wrong.  Here is a link  (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyvideo.htm) to the video of the assassination attempt and it’s quite obvious the bodyguard (he’s the guy in the grey suit who turns and faces camera) did not fly backwards six feet. You see him taking the hit, he then turns/”skips” to the right and collapses. 

Paracowboy, this is not meant to a criticism of you since you had received the info from an acknowledged expert in the field, but when I saw the statement I figured I should set the record straight. Cheers.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jun 2006)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Later paracowboy states that he received this info from David Grossman, a well-known expert on human aggression. Unfortunately, this information is wrong.  Here is a link  (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyvideo.htm) to the video of the assassination attempt and it’s quite obvious the bodyguard (he’s the guy in the grey suit who turns and faces camera) did not fly backwards six feet. You see him taking the hit, he then turns/”skips” to the right and collapses.
> 
> Paracowboy, this is not meant to a criticism of you since you had received the info from an acknowledged expert in the field, but when I saw the statement I figured I should set the record straight. Cheers.


thanks! Factual info is never a criticism.

As an aside, does anyone know how the guy is doing now? I imagine he's retired, but did he continue on with the Secret Service?


----------



## starlight_cdn (15 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Curently some troops in some units will only be alloted 60 some odd rounds a YEAR  ???
> That is a CRIME.



I shoot exactly 42 rounds 5.56mm and 25 rounds 9mm a year with my unit. Pitiful. 

Thankfully, I keep my pers skills up via 'recreational' shooting and some work after hours.


----------



## TCBF (15 Jun 2006)

Well, I got lucky.  A bunch of us learned a new way to shoot yesterday, and in the process fired over 300 rounds each.  My take on it - when you take a 51 year old with 30 years in and suddenly try to teach him how to shoot starting bent over in the 'dog ^&*%$#@ a football' (as I call it) position - your ammo budget better go up a LOT.  

Another skill set that will no doubt fade if we don't keep it up.

Me, I'm all for keeping it up.  It was a very interesting experience, and worthwhile.


----------



## starlight_cdn (15 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, I got lucky.  A bunch of us learned a new way to shoot yesterday, and in the process fired over 300 rounds each.  My take on it - when you take a 51 year old with 30 years in and suddenly try to teach him how to shoot starting bent over in the 'dog ^&*%$#@ a football' (as I call it) position - your ammo budget better go up a LOT.
> 
> Another skill set that will no doubt fade if we don't keep it up.
> 
> Me, I'm all for keeping it up.  It was a very interesting experience, and worthwhile.



It is new for you!!! 

Excellent for close up....


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, I got lucky.  A bunch of us learned a new way to shoot yesterday, and in the process fired over 300 rounds each.  My take on it - when you take a 51 year old with 30 years in and suddenly try to teach him how to shoot starting bent over in the 'dog ^&*%$#@ a football' (as I call it) position - your ammo budget better go up a LOT.



Can you amplify this or post a link to a picture of what you are describing?  I spent a lot of time behind the firing sights but this doesnt sound like any position Ive used or seen before (other than in procreation that is   ;D)


----------



## KevinB (16 Jun 2006)

Should be something like this.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Jun 2006)

Yup I6 put up some very good pictures. you bend your knees keep your body square to the target and lean foreward slightly at the waist for recoil.

Did I miss a postion I6?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jun 2006)

Yup!

Your body armour/plates are on your chest and back.  You have nothing under your arms, so that is you soft/weakest spot - sides.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jun 2006)

Squaring up 100% is more of an MP-5 drill - due to the greater lenght and recoil of the C8 you still blade your stance a bit - 

The slight lean and bent knees are so you can still shoot and move while retaining stability in yoru upper torso.
Both Elbows are in - as opposed to as previous taught


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jun 2006)

SOCOM is in search of better 5.56mm ammo.If they can motivate industry with a lucrative contract then we may see the improvements in penetration desired. If SOCOM gets a better 5.56mm round then the Army will not be far behind.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060625.aspx


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jun 2006)

And we will follow in about 10 years.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jun 2006)

I noticed they said lead free -- the 87gr Compressed Tungsten rounds from Peace River Labs looks like they may be the ticket -- but they are damn pricey...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2006)

Save ammunition and money; lure them in for a throat punch! >


----------



## starlight_cdn (26 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The slight lean and bent knees are so you can still shoot and move while retaining stability in yoru upper torso.
> Both Elbows are in - as opposed to as previous taught



Chickenwings are bad. Elbows in good.

This is an aggressive stance that allows the shooter to move forward while maintaining some semblance of stance. Took a bit to train old army out of me but MG34 kept beating me with that stick until I got it right.


----------



## Zeptorem (4 Feb 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> SOCOM is in search of better 5.56mm ammo.If they can motivate industry with a lucrative contract then we may see the improvements in penetration desired. If SOCOM gets a better 5.56mm round then the Army will not be far behind.
> 
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060625.aspx



The M855 is about as good as it gets for terminal ballistics without resorting to decidedly illegal methods. As external ballistics, the 5.56 all-around just kinda sucks.

I'd cast my armchair gunsmith vote for something intermediate between 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO. Something in the 6-7mm range, with a long, slender bullet for excellent ballistic coefficient—the 5.56 simply doesn't hold its velocity downrange. Past a few hundred meters it's basically a pointy .22LR. It gets even worse when fired out of a carbine-length barrel, where it'll only fragment up to about 50 meters.

My vote's for the 6.5 mm Grendel. I have an AR15 with an Alexander Arms gas piston upper in 6.5, and it's great. Low recoil and weight, hellfire accurate (apparently shorter, fatter casings with more aggressive neck angles provide a more even powder burn and, therefore, better accuracy), and amazingly flat trajectory. According to FBI tests, it fragments quite well, too, providing superior terminal ballistics to the 5.56, especially at greater ranges.

tl;dr, forget te 6.8mm SPC. Terrible ballistic coefficient, middling accuracy; it's only really good for CQB.

EDIT: I just realized this thread was made back when people were still discovering fire... oh well, at least I used the search function instead of making a new damn thread.

SECOND EDIT: Are you guys allowed to take your own, privately-bought ammunition to fire at the range, since you're alloted so little? Marstar sells 1200 rounds of 5.56 for a mere $419. It'd be totally worth it, in my eyes, if you've got a bunch of money lying around and want some trigger time...


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Feb 2009)

Zeptorem said:
			
		

> The M855 is about as good as it gets for terminal ballistics without resorting to decidedly illegal methods. As external ballistics, the 5.56 all-around just kinda sucks.
> 
> I'd cast my armchair gunsmith vote for something intermediate between 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO. Something in the 6-7mm range, with a long, slender bullet for excellent ballistic coefficient—the 5.56 simply doesn't hold its velocity downrange. Past a few hundred meters it's basically a pointy .22LR. It gets even worse when fired out of a carbine-length barrel, where it'll only fragment up to about 50 meters.



5.56mm SS109 penetrates steel helmets and flak jackets at 800m. Far from a .22LR. After being exposed to 5.56mm M193 and SS109 variants from Canada, USA, and Australia, overall, since 1978, in peace time and at war, I've never had any issues with it, and I've seen its results. US SF and some USMC have been also using a heavier bullet in Iraq (from Rapid City SD) with much success. Without giving too much away google this, adn it will tell you all.

I don't know who told you about projectiles fragmenting (I take you talking about the projectile fragmenting in its target) only up to 50 metres from M4 bbls,  but that is incorrect.

EDIT: Using private ammunition is prohibited from military weapons.


----------



## Zeptorem (4 Feb 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> 5.56mm SS109 penetrates steel helmets and flak jackets at 800m. Far from a .22LR.



The .22LR was mostly hyperbole, but the M855 still has about the same energy as a .22WMR after not very long.

Besides, penetrating a regular steel helmet isn't much of an accomplishment for a military round. Hell, my compound _bow _can quite easily penetrate an M1 (so can my .22, come to think of it) at close range.

What a 5.56 does on the other side is an entirely different matter.



> After being exposed to 5.56mm M193 and SS109 variants from Canada, USA, and Australia, overall, since 1978, in peace time and at war, I've never had any issues with it, and I've seen its results. US SF and some USMC have been also using a heavier bullet in Iraq (from Rapid City SD) with much success. Without giving too much away google this, adn it will tell you all.
> 
> I don't know who told you about projectiles fragmenting (I take you talking about the projectile fragmenting in its target) only up to 50 metres from M4 bbls,  but that is incorrect.



My original source was a 2001 issue of "Special Weapons for Military and Police", an OPERATOR magazine whose primary clientele is probably Counter-Strike players, but I looked into it a bit more, and these were my sources (note: they're old and now 404, and I can't seem to find any reputable mirrors):

http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

Anyway, fired from a 10-inch Colt Commando barrel, the M855 only fragments at the cannelure up to about 50m, from a 16-inch M4 (C8) barrel 95-130m, and from a full-length 20-inch barrel that range extends to 150-190 m. Fragmentation at the upper end of that scale is unimpressive, though; from looking at the gel tests, it only breaks into three or four pieces, instead of forming those fist-sized wound channels that happen up close.



> EDIT: Using private ammunition is prohibited from military weapons.



Oh well. Wonder why they don't allot you guys at least a few hundred rounds a year; ammo isn't that expensive, especially for the military.


----------



## GAP (4 Feb 2009)

Instead of your magazine....you might want to listen to Wes....he was an armorer, I believe. 

As an aside, he spent his time in Iraq.....


----------



## Zeptorem (4 Feb 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Instead of your magazine....you might want to listen to Wes....he was an armorer, I believe.
> 
> As an aside, he spent his time in Iraq.....



Oh, don't get me wrong, I appreciate real-world experience. I'd like to know specifically what he's seen, but whatever. I'm just arguing my points from a different perspective (as someone who's competitively shot precision rifles since I was twelve) in a pretty civilized manner, backing them up, et cetera. Hell, what I'm suggesting isn't even that radical or different. I'm just going by scientific ballistics tests and my experience with external ballistics.

What I _don't_ appreciate is this undeserved indignation toward us uncivilized, filthy, loser civilians. IE, quoting my tongue-in-cheek profile and adding a sarcastic roll-eyes smily at the end instead of actually addressing my points.


----------



## KevinB (4 Feb 2009)

Mk262 Mod1 is a 77gr Sierra Matchking, made by BlackHills Ammunition, it briefly had a 77gr Nosler.

M856 Tracer, Mk262 Mod1, M855 pulled bullets 






Some basic comparrision






 There is Brown Tip ammo issued to SOF as well and a well sourced article by Defense Review
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1130
 unfortunately that ammo construction is not open source  


FYI M855 fragments to about 15m from a Mk18 - however just since the ammuntion is below its fragmentation impact velocity does not mean it is simply ineffective.
C77 has a slightly thicker bullet jacket (thus needs a  higher impact velocity for fragmentation)


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Feb 2009)

Zeptorem said:
			
		

> Oh, don't get me wrong, I appreciate real-world experience. I'd like to know specifically what he's seen, but whatever. I'm just arguing my points from a different perspective (as someone who's competitively shot precision rifles since I was twelve) in a pretty civilized manner, backing them up, et cetera. Hell, what I'm suggesting isn't even that radical or different. I'm just going by scientific ballistics tests and my experience with external ballistics.
> 
> What I _don't_ appreciate is this undeserved indignation toward us uncivilized, filthy, loser civilians. IE, quoting my tongue-in-cheek profile and adding a sarcastic roll-eyes smily at the end instead of actually addressing my points.



Mate, to sum up, and not to be too rude, but you're ONLY 17 yrs old, you are not an adult, and not even old enough to legally own a rifle and a restricted one (AR15) at that. Thats regardless since you've been shooting since you were 12, a whopping 5 yrs ago.

I know many civilian shooters who I admire, respect, and learn from, so that 'filthy loser civilians' line you are trying to pull does not go far with me. I judge people for their individual worth, not the catagory they belong to.

Do not believe anything you read in gun-gossip magazines.

I find your points meaningless and ill informed at best.

Want some advice? Stick to your lane of expertise. Read and listen on here instead of playing the SME you are not, because you are not. Am I? Yes, and thats offically recognised by ALTC Bandiana, a Force wide SME for Small Arms, and registered, thats not including +33 yrs in two armies, and I have been shooting since 1969.

I6 has forgot more than I will ever know, so listen to what he has to say. A very knowledgable man.

Read, heed and fail naught,

OWDU


----------



## Zeptorem (4 Feb 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I judge people for their individual worth, not the catagory they belong to...
> 
> 
> 
> ...you're ONLY 17 yrs old, you are not an adult ...



Hmm...



> Do not believe anything you read in gun-gossip magazines.



I don't, that's why I looked into it further and verified with multiple sources.



> I find your points meaningless and ill informed at best.



Great, then argue them instead of personally attacking me.



> Want some advice? Stick to your lane of expertise. Read and listen on here instead of playing the SME you are not, because you are not.



Didn't say I am, that's why my profile says "Armchair Commando" and my signature says what it does.



> Am I? Yes, and thats offically recognised by ALTC Bandiana, a Force wide SME for Small Arms, and registered, thats not including +33 yrs in two armies, and I have been shooting since 1969.



Cool, then instead of just saying that "5.56 is great and you are wrong because I say so, and I have more experience than you", provide your reasoning, give me some wound profiles, energies, and velocities at different ranges. I'm legitimately curious and crave this kind of information and knowledge! Besides, how do you expect me to learn anything or be convinced of a differing view if you don't back what you say up? All the experience in the world isn't going to convince someone if you just state your opinion without justifying it, especially to someone on the internet that's never met you.



> I6 has forgot more than I will ever know, so listen to what he has to say. A very knowledgable man.



Yes, I-6 is very helpful and given me some wound profiles (though at close range, they're still interesting). That's the kind of thing I want to see when I go here.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Feb 2009)

Since when does some fair dinkum advice turn into a personal attack?

If you think you were personally 'attacked', you've got some issues.

Don't be so lazy. Information you want me to give you can be found on the INet, and that can then be compaired to 5.45 x 39mm, 7.62mm NATO, and 7.62 x 39mm also.

There is nothing wrong with the current 5.56 x 45mm cartridge (it will be around as the workhorse of the west for decades to come), and a 17 yr old telling me otherwise really irritates me. I certainlly would NOT want to be on the business end of of a SS109 ball projectile. Would you?

As for your 5 posts in question, you barge in with a  I've been shooting for 5 yrs-own an AR15-(legally you cannot, you are not even an adult)-know-it-all attitude, and to me attitude means everything. Calling this cartridge nothing but a .22LR does nothing but demonstrate your own ignorance.

Learn on here, gobbing off about stuff you don't know about does nothing for you, and thats more advice, not an attack.

Enjoy your day.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2009)

Zeptorem said:
			
		

> Great, then argue them instead of personally attacking me.



No one has attacked you on this page, so cool it.

If you want to broaden your horizons with informed debate, why don't you try asking questions of the more knowledgeable members around here?  Lord knows these folks like to talk about bullets and shit if prompted.


----------



## Zeptorem (4 Feb 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Since when does some fair dinkum advice turn into a personal attack?



When the advice is "shut up, you're obviously too young to have an opinion", yeah, it's a bit hostile.



> Don't be so lazy. Information you want me to give you can be found on the INet, and that can then be compaired to 5.45 x 39mm, 7.62mm NATO, and 7.62 x 39mm also.



Yes, I've already found it, that's how I came to my conclusion.



> There is nothing wrong with the current 5.56 x 45mm cartridge (it will be around as the workhorse of the west for decades to come), and a 17 yr old telling me otherwise really irritates me.



Ugh...

Then if my opinion (which must seem so unreasonable and ill-advised; basically "I think we can use a cartridge that provides all-around superior ballistics without sacrificing much of the benefits of a small, light round") is so obviously flawed and invalid, maybe you can actually ADDRESS it instead of poisoning the well?



> I certainlly would NOT want to be on the business end of of a SS109 ball projectile. Would you?



I wouldn't want to be on the business end of a .17 HMR, does that mean we should chamber our C7s in it?



> As for your 5 posts in question, you barge in with a  I've been shooting for 5 yrs-own an AR15-(legally you cannot, you are not even an adult)



The guns are in dad's name, but I've paid for them all with my money, and I shoot, maintain, and modify them. They are, de-facto, mine.



> -know-it-all attitude,



Christ man, what have I done so far to suggest any sort of know-it-all attitude? I'm the first one to admit my opinion may be invalid, which is why I present facts and figures. I do get a bit pissed off, though, when someone from the internet comes in and says "oh you're completely wrong" without providing any reason other than "I'm more experienced than you". Tell me why I'm wrong, dammit, I'm genuinely curious!



> and to me attitude means everything. Calling this cartridge nothing but a .22LR does nothing but demonstrate your own ignorance.



I have to type this with one hand right now, 'cause the palm of the other is firmly planted in my face.

I did not call the 5.56 "nothing but a .22LR". You are demonstrably misrepresenting me. I said "after a few hundred meters, it's basically a pointy .22LR". I explained _in my next post_ that it was hyperbole—a joke.



> Learn on here, gobbing off about stuff you don't know about does nothing for you, and thats more advice, not an attack.



I've been logged on here for over six hours, spending many times that looking into this topic beforehand. Don't think for a second I'm just here firing off posts as quickly as I can think them up.



> Enjoy your day.



I will now—I was stuck in a stuffy, dark room in my library for three hours while my school was in lockdown, so I'd much rather be at home than sitting in the dark.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Feb 2009)

I would suggest in taking the moderator's advice he personally provided to you, so noted two posts back, but it does not seem you are.

You only get one chance at a first impression, remember that.


----------



## KevinB (5 Feb 2009)

Zeptorem,

 Your first comment was that M855 was 'as good as it gets' for 5.56mm, this is utterly false.

Secondly I've met Bill Alexander (Alexander Arms, who make the 6.5 Grendel) he is not marketing it as a 5.56mm replacement, but that is a different story even if he wanted to.  The Grendel mags are not 5.56mm mags, so you would need to chnage out the fleet of magazines, along with uppers and a metric boatload of other items.  Since Bill controls the reamers, and production of his ammo, its not ever going to get exposure.

 The other issue you face is that several of us who have been USING 5.56mm rifles and carbines, are telling you the round works.

So yes its a little annoying when someone who has been alive less time than some of us wear or wore uniforms, and has never fired a round in anger comes to tell us we are all RTFO.

 Additionally their are several barrier blind ammuntions being developed, more non open source material is available if you have the need to know.  Until then you can rant around in your little corner and be completely ignored or ridiculed by those who have the info.
   If you want to be in the know, I suggest you pony up the bar, and raise your hand to swear allegiance.


----------



## MG34 (5 Feb 2009)

I-6 Amen to that.
 If our young fellow had any experience at all he would know that the Rifleman is not the main killing tool in the Infantry "toolbox" the Support weapon is the real killer on the battlefield and the Rifleman is simply there to ensure the security of these weapons. The cartridge issued to the Rifleman has only to be capable of that task, killing or putting down the enemy so that the Support weapons can do their job with as little interference as possible.
The Rifleman's weapon doesn't have to penetrate barriers,or kill at long range that is the job of the support weapon, it does have to provide accurate fire on point targets with lethal or wounding effect within it's maximum effective range, and lethal fire at close range during the assault where the effectiveness of the support wea[pons is reduced due to the close proximity of enemy and friendly forces.


----------



## GAP (5 Feb 2009)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I-6 Amen to that.
> If our young fellow had any experience at all he would know that the Rifleman is not the main killing tool in the Infantry "toolbox" the Support weapon is the real killer on the battlefield and the Rifleman is simply there to ensure the security of these weapons. The cartridge issued to the Rifleman has only to be capable of that task, killing or putting down the enemy so that the Support weapons can do their job with as little interference as possible.
> The Rifleman's weapon doesn't have to penetrate barriers,or kill at long range that is the job of the support weapon, it does have to provide accurate fire on point targets with lethal or wounding effect within it's maximum effective range, and lethal fire at close range during the assault where the effectiveness of the support wea[pons is reduced due to the close proximity of enemy and friendly forces.



Really.....all that humping through rice patties and jungle was to protect the big guys.....?   ;D


----------



## MG34 (5 Feb 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Really.....all that humping through rice patties and jungle was to protect the big guys.....?   ;D



In a word: Yes

The Rifleman does contribute to the close in fight but at range it is the GPMG and light mortars that do most of the killing (as well a Supporting Arms of course).
Despite what the Pam says with the current issued ammunition the  effective range of the C7 is only about 150m (due to velocity required for the ammunition to achieve full potential) the C8 HBAR is a bit less and the C8 is quite a bit less . Beyond that range the round does not fragment reliably and it's terminal performance suffers,not to say a hit in the CNS will not have the desired effect at range, but in the event of a non CNS hit the enemy will still be able to function as a threat.
  The Rifleman does have to be able to suppress long range threats to allow the support weapons to manuver and whatnot but their contribution to the long range fight is more to add to the volume of fire than to cause fatalities, this is simply due to the nature and the limitations of hand held weapons.
 I will add that these are my observations in combat operations and individual experience may vary.


----------



## KevinB (6 Feb 2009)

I would disagree in retrospect to a true COIN Op.  When we are concerned about the safety of the populace, lobbing arty and mortars, and sending a ton of lead down range with LAV cannons etc is just not a great idea.  
   Especially true in Low Intensity Urban Combat, where the rifle/carbine
 is king.


----------



## MG34 (6 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I would disagree in retrospect to a true COIN Op.  When we are concerned about the safety of the populace, lobbing arty and mortars, and sending a ton of lead down range with LAV cannons etc is just not a great idea.
> Especially true in Low Intensity Urban Combat, where the rifle/carbine
> is king.



As I said above in the close fight the Rifleman is key, however don't confuse my wording "support weapon" to include supporting arms. The GPMG/LMG is even in a COIN OP the prime source of firepower in the PL/Sect securing and  allowing the manuver elements entry into buildings in Urban Combat and cutting off avenues of  En escape. The Rifleman does not move unless they are covered, in any phase of warfare COIN or not.
Afghanistan is still not a Low Intensity fight so I can't see use going back to the LAR Group just yet


----------



## KevinB (6 Feb 2009)

I misunderstood, sorry I thought for a moment you had been co-opted by the firepower borg  that has assimilated a ton of CF personnel recently.

 You need our Stoner LMG - the Assault Machine Gun that handles like a carbine...

Shoot me an email - I have some interesting info.


----------



## MG34 (7 Feb 2009)

No problem, yes the stand off clowns are irritating to say the least it seems that casualty avoidance has taken over close with and destroy.

PM inbound!!


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2009)

Back to the topic of a better 5.56mm...

There is probably a blatantly obvious reason that this has not yet been mentioned, perhaps I'm misunderstanding everything or something (let's face it I'm an FNG), or perhaps it's illegal in some way, or perhaps not possible with such a high-powered rifle, but what about making a 5.56 nylon tipped?

I realise we're not shooting at coyotes here for pelts, but isn't the whole point to this that the current 5.56 isn't fragmenting fast enough and is exiting the body? And the idea of a nylon tip is so that it fragments much quicker and doesn't exit the other side? Seems like it's just what the doctor ordered?

Again, FNG here, probably won't take much to shoo this down but I'm always up for some enlightenment.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2009)

In lay terms, in the morals and legalities of 'civilised' warfare, one cannot use any soft pt ammo in SAA, and projectiles must be ball (FMJ). I am sure some aspring jr officer can find a reference, ha!  ;D

Don't think for a second you can cop a shot from 5.56mm and walk away with a flesh wound. The wound cavities created by 5.56mm SS109 FMJ's and variants are shockingly horriffic.

One exit wound I seen in Iraq had two field dressings in it for packing alone.

The SS109 ball varaint (Australian F1) internally has a small air pocket, a steel 'penetrator' tip, and then lead. It does its job WELL. I do beleive the C77 has the same principal.

Below are the fol ( did these myself):

US M193 5.56mm Ball - note just led internally
Aust F1 5.56mm Ball - note air space, steel penetrator, then led
Aust F4 7.62mm Ball - for comparison

EDIT: If memory serves me correctly the Russian 5.45mm projectile also utilises an air pocket, so we are not the only ones using this design.


----------



## KevinB (7 Feb 2009)

As Wes mentioned the Ballistic Tip Nylon rounds have been rules to be a soft point, and thus not legal for use in land warfare as per the Hague Convention.

However the Barnes X Soldid Copper bullet and many of the BTHP's ahve been ruled legal for land warfare.


----------



## ballz (8 Feb 2009)

So, I'm guessing this talk of "if our gov't had stones" is referring to the fact that *the Hague Convention only applies when all parties involved have signed the Hague Convention,* and I have a feeling the Taliban/Al Quada certainly haven't signed it. Would it matter if, whomever or whatever was governing Afghanistan at the time, had signed it (don't know if they did or not)? Since the Taliban no longer govern Afghanistan and are in all aspects a terrorist group that operate within the country and want to take over under the mask of political party?

Or was the talk of gov't and stones referring to a different kind of bullet? If so, what kind?

Also, just so I know if I'm understanding the concepts or not, was I correct that a nylon tip would be just what the doctor ordered (in regards to expanding faster) to cause an incapacitating wound?

Why exactly is it outlawed? Is it considered to be "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering?" Because I'm under the impression that it would kill a person faster rather than slower?

But I've never been shot or even seen a bullet wound in a person so I really have no idea.


----------



## KevinB (10 Feb 2009)

> Laws of War :
> Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899
> The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,
> 
> ...




The issue at hand is that we now have evolved small arms into much better killing tools, bullets that fragment are much harded to treat than bullets that simply mushroom, but for archaic laws and rulings we are stuck with it.
 Also since we are the good guys, just becuase our enemy does not follow the convention, we hold ourselves to the convention.

   However the fact remains that their are (non open source) bullets that are LEGAL for use.  The fact that we are not using them is a blight on the chain of command, who of course are so casualty adverse that flattening a village is much easier than a protrated small arms fight... :


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2009)

Minor technical note:

One of the reasons for having an "air pocket" in the nose of an SS109 is to ensure the weight and center of mass are distributed correctly for stable ballistic flight, and has little or no bearing on terminal ballistics (i.e. when it hits you).

If the desired end point is horrific wounds then other mechanisms besides expanding and fragmenting bullets are possible. One version of the HK G-11 rifle used a 4.7mm (I believe) round with a small "spoon" shaped cavity on the nose. This had little effect on the ballistic performance, but induced wild tumbling in the target on impact. In the 1960's, the US Army became enamoured of the concept of hypervelocity flechettes to replace bullets; after the flat trajectory and ease of marksmanship training flechettes offered to the shooters, flechettes also had the ability to penetrate current types of IPE and deliver horrific wounds by bending or "fish hooking" as they passed through the target.

Most of this is moot; these mechanisms work in specific manners and under specific circumstances, but the "real world" has so many variables that there are no "perfect" rounds. For any combination of ammunition and weapon, someone can always come up with a "Oh yeah?, What about x?"


----------



## KevinB (10 Feb 2009)

FYI the Hk MP-7 4.6x30 round uses the same spoon idea -- terminal effect is less than desireable...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FYI the Hk MP-7 4.6x30 round uses the same spoon idea -- terminal effect is less than desireable...





			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> "Oh yeah?, What about _x_ ?"


----------



## KevinB (11 Feb 2009)

Its a method to increase wounding, in a Hague compliant way (the whole letter not the spirit of the law thing...)  However due to light weight and short length the wound profile is less than ideal.

I'd much rather see C77/M855 bullets continued to be issued and troops getting enough rounds to properly train.  I worry that if any ammunition chnages take place that training allotments will suffer.  By far the biggest issue is markmanship.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'd much rather see C77/M855 bullets continued to be issued and troops getting enough rounds to properly train.  I worry that if any ammunition chnages take place that training allotments will suffer.  By far the biggest issue is markmanship.



That is an excellent point. A more-lethal round that doesn't hit its target because soldier didn't fire enough to become proficient is not very lethal.


----------



## j0hn_r1 (4 Aug 2009)

Just saw this related story about the compitency of the M-16/AR-15/C-7 and 5.56mm rounds...

*WARNING - Graphic photos inside link..!*

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0



> Happened in the Philipines. Close range hit, est range is 5-10meters.
> 
> Cop was drunk, the man shot claims the cop shot him. The cop claims it was an accidental discharge. *THIS IS NOT THE THREAD TOPIC!*
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Aug 2009)

Yes, thats a typical wound caused by a small high velocity projectile.

The AFP are still using the old M193 ammo in thie 1/12 bbl's, or they were the last time I trained with them in 2004. They had Elisco M16A1's, or at least the ones I observed.

Hard to believe the SS109 has been around since the early 1980s, and this is an imoproved version 

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## KevinB (10 Aug 2009)

For the bullet to come apart like that in that section of tissue and the bone to break like that the round must have hit bone.

 Bone will not fracture unless it is hit direct from a small caliber bullet


----------



## observor 69 (17 Aug 2009)

http://www.military.com/entertainment/outdoor-guide/hunting/predator-ar-15-round-up.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Predator AR-15 Round Up


----------

